9798804v4

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

ROCKINGHAM, SS SUPERIOR COURT

) BLYTHE BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 218-2020-CV-00673 ) v. ) ) DANIEL GERHARD BROWN, ) ) Defendant. ) )

DEFENDANT DANIEL G. BROWN’S ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendant Daniel G. Brown (“Defendant”) answers Plaintiff Blythe Brown’s (“Plaintiff”)

Complaint (the “Complaint”) as set forth below, except certain allegations that are subject to a

motion to dismiss as to which Defendant seeks leave to respond at a later time. Numbered

paragraphs below refer to the corresponding paragraphs in the Complaint.

Defendant seeks to strike Plaintiff’s jury claim on Count I (violation of RSA 458:15-b),

and to require that a finding of any such violation as a predicate for Counts II (Fraud), III

(Fraudulent Misrepresentation), IV (Negligent Misrepresentation), and V (Conversion) be

resolved without a jury. As grounds therefor, Defendant says that any determination of whether

he filed a false financial affidavit with the 10th Circuit Family Division during his divorce

proceedings, which he denies, must be made pursuant to RSA 458:15-b, for which jury trials are

not provided.

Defendant recognizes that the rules do not address whether the allegations in the Complaint

should be included in advance of Defendant’s responses to each paragraphs, and that the usual

practice does not include reciting the allegations. However, the Complaint in this case contains

FiledFile Date: 7/30/2020 3:35 PMRockingham Superior Court

E-Filed Document

- 3 - 9798804v4

Plaintiff’s claims that she has been deceived and financially mistreated (Counts I through V) also

fail because they are based on the erroneous legal premise that Plaintiff was the 50% owner of all

of Defendant’s compensation and assets during the marriage, such that Defendant could not spend

even a tiny fraction of his compensation without Plaintiff’s knowledge and permission,

notwithstanding that New Hampshire imposes no presumption of equal ownership during the

course of the marriage. Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant has subjected her to emotional distress

(Counts VI and VII) fail factually because Plaintiff was not, as she portrays herself, a devoted wife

and an innocent victim, but rather engaged in conduct that caused the marriage to be one in name

only by the end of 2014. Such claims fail legally because Plaintiff released all claims relating to

conduct during the marriage in exchange for substantial consideration, and no cognizable legal

claim exists for an ex-spouse to seek damages after the marriage for emotional distress relating to

conduct that purportedly occurred during the marriage.

II. Background and Factual Summary

1. Defendant Dan Brown is a world-famous author and master storyteller. As set out

in detail herein, Dan has lived a proverbial life of lies for at least the past six years, seeming to be

the epitome of a world-famous novelist leading a simple life in his home state of New Hampshire,

while in reality he was something quite different. For years, Dan has secretly removed substantial

funds from his and Blythe’s hard-earned marital assets to conduct sordid, extra-marital affairs

with women—one half his age—and to pursue a clandestine life.

Response:

1. Defendant admits that he has enjoyed success as a writer but denies the remaining

allegations and characterizations in paragraph 1, which fail to acknowledge (a) the increasingly

dysfunctional nature of the marriage beginning in or about 2004 and culminating in a stipulated

allocation of all assets in 2018; (b) that Plaintiff was neither blameless nor an innocent victim in

the deterioration of the marriage, or in the spending of Defendant’s earnings; and (c) the money

- 4 - 9798804v4

that Defendant spent from his personal earnings amounted to well less than one percent (1%) of

his total earnings and a small fraction of what she spent on her equestrian dressage pastime and

companions, often without either his knowledge or his consent. Further answering, Defendant

says that the marriage was troubled and often rancorous, especially after the influx of wealth in

2004 following the 2003 publication of The Da Vinci Code, and a rift that Plaintiff created that

same year with Defendant’s family. When Plaintiff chose over the course of subsequent years to

immerse herself in new interests, including the equestrian dressage world, her focus on her new

equestrian friends and companions, and her travels to dressage and carriage shows and on

vacations without Defendant, the marriage suffered the consequences of a life increasingly

separate from Defendant’s.

In late 2012, she willfully embarrassed him in front of his agent, his publicist, his editor,

and his British publisher, by stridently insisting over his objection that they fly four of her Friesian

horses to perform in Florence at a book event. In May of 2013, she hurt him to the core by telling

him after his speech to a full house at Lincoln Center that, “it turns my stomach to watch you on

stage. I no longer recognize who you are.” She regularly mocked Defendant’s lifelong

commitment to daily exercise and fitness, calling it vain and shallow. When Defendant, deeply

unhappy with the state of the marriage, asked her on multiple occasions to engage in marriage

counseling, she refused in derogatory terms. By the end of 2014, Plaintiff and Defendant were

married in name only. Although Plaintiff had no legal entitlement to 50% of the compensation

paid to, or assets accumulated by, Defendant for his creative works during the course of the

marriage and before any divorce, she spent copiously from Defendant’s earnings, including more

than $10,000,000 from their joint and her individual account on her equestrian interests and

companions. At the time of the formal division of assets in October of 2018 with an as-of date of

- 5 - 9798804v4

July 8, 2018, Defendant fully disclosed all of his assets, a fact well known to Plaintiff when she

filed this lawsuit. Pursuant to the stipulated allocation, Plaintiff received of all of the assets

amounting to more than $ , plus $ in lieu of future alimony, such that Plaintiff

walked away with cash and assets valued at more than $ .

2. Dan Brown is best known as the author of The Da Vinci Code, a novel published

in 2003 that has sold more than 80 million copies and has been translated into more than 44

languages. It is one of the best-selling books ever written. Since 2003, Dan has published

numerous other books, including Angels & Demons, The Lost Symbol, Inferno, and Origin. Several

of his books have been made into major motion pictures.

Response:

2. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 2, except to say that Angels &

Demons was initially published in 2000, before The Da Vinci Code.

3. Blythe and Dan met in California in 1990, long before Dan achieved any literary

success. At the time, Blythe was in the music industry, working as the Director of Artist

Development at the National Academy of Songwriters in Los Angeles, and Dan was a struggling

songwriter without real prospects. It was Blythe who recognized Dan’s literary skills and talents,

and unlimited potential as a writer of fiction.

Response:

3. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 3 as to when and where he and

Plaintiff met, and that she stood in a position, i.e., Director of Artist Development at the National

Academy of Songwriters, that was far superior to his own as an aspiring songwriter. Further

answering, Defendant says that he was flattered by her interest in his creative projects and

impressed by her position and her forceful personality.

4. Blythe and Dan married in 1997. Throughout their years together, which came to

an end at Dan’s insistence in 2018, Blythe was a full partner in what might be called the “Dan

Brown Phenomenon.” Indeed, Blythe was no bystander. She originated key themes and critical

- 6 - 9798804v4

ideas for the novels, served as lead researcher, first-line editor, and critic, and was Dan’s literary

partner in the fullest sense. Indeed, Blythe and Dan formed a partnership in the literary world that

was to last for nearly thirty years, taking them places that they could never have imagined.

Response:

4. In response to the first sentence of paragraph 4, Defendant admits that he and

Plaintiff married in 1997, a first marriage for him and a second for her. With regard to the second

sentence, Defendant says that the marriage had been deteriorating since 2004, coinciding with

Plaintiff’s deteriorating civility after the influx of wealth resulting from the success of The Da

Vinci Code, and with the incident in which she alienated his family, causing his father to write

years later that the family “always tried to be civil to her thereafter, but we never recovered from

that blow. . . .” The deterioration was exacerbated by subsequent conduct as described in later

responses. In 2012, Plaintiff raised the possibility of a divorce, on the first of three occasions on

which she did so. By the end of 2014, the marriage was one in name only. With regard to the

remainder of the allegations in paragraph 4, Defendant denies that Plaintiff was “a full partner” in

anything called the “Dan Brown Phenomenon” or that they formed a “literary partnership.” While

he appreciated her assistance with his research efforts and her “first read” editing suggestions, as

he did the efforts of other family members, her assistance steadily declined after publication of

The Da Vinci Code as she became increasingly wrapped up in her equestrian dressage world and

her new companions. In short, Plaintiff materially overstates her contributions to his work.

5. Dan’s first few efforts at writing were unsuccessful. However, Blythe willed Dan to

persevere, and thirteen years after they met, Blythe and Dan finally had their first breakthrough,

a novel called The Da Vinci Code. Blythe was actually the originator of the novel’s premise: a

treasure hunt storyline centered on the Holy Grail, as well as Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene

being married and having a family with a bloodline that continues to this day. She worked closely

with Dan throughout the development of the complex plot and was the lead researcher for the

- 7 - 9798804v4

novel. And as she recognized so many years ago, Dan became a master at turning their

collaborative vision for the novel into something with profound historic popularity.

Response:

5. Defendant admits that his books that were published before The Da Vinci Code

(2003), i.e., Digital Fortress (1998), Angels and Demons (2000), and Deception Point (2001), did

not become commercially successful until after the success of The Da Vinci Code. While

Defendant has publicly acknowledged with due credit—including dedication of the novel—

Plaintiff’s role in assisting with historic research for The Da Vinci Code, and in persuading him to

incorporate the sacred feminine and Mary Magdalene bloodline themes, into his pre-existing theme

of dark, dangerous secret religious societies, Plaintiff was by no means the originator of the

bloodline premise, but rather suggested its inclusion after watching a documentary on that subject

on television. Defendant conceptualized and wrote his novels on the basis of his own vision, not

of a collaborative vision, although conversations with others, including his then-wife and other

family members, contributed to the development of his vision for each of his novels.

6. Blythe and Dan’s close teamwork enabled them to achieve financial success and

celebrity. When The Da Vinci Code was first published in 2003, it was an international smash hit.

The novel dominated The New York Times best-seller list for nearly three years and was adapted

into a film starring Tom Hanks in 2006. TIME Magazine named Dan Brown one of its “100 Most

Influential People in the World” in 2005.

Response:

6. Defendant admits that financial success and celebrity came with The Da Vinci

Code. While he appreciates Plaintiff’s contributions to The Da Vinci Code as stated above,

Plaintiff overstates those contributions, and her own role. Defendant admits the remaining

allegations in paragraph 6 are true.

- 8 - 9798804v4

7. Dan paid homage to Blythe’s extraordinary contribution to their success by

dedicating The Da Vinci Code to her with these words: “And my wife, Blythe—art historian,

painter, front-line editor, and without a doubt the most astonishingly talented woman I have ever

known.” The Da Vinci Code was only the beginning. One success led to another.

Response:

7. Defendant says that he dedicated The Da Vinci Code to his then-wife, in the words

quoted, and that he did so because he wanted her to know how special she was to him at that time,

and in gratitude for her persistent suggestion that the novel incorporate the historic Magdalene

bloodline theme. But, the dedication was not because of her “extraordinary contribution to their

success,” and he did not consider it “paying homage.” Indeed, they had not yet realized any

success when he wrote the dedication. With regard to the last two sentences of paragraph 7,

Defendant agrees that his subsequent novels, as well as his earlier novels, were successful after

publication of The Da Vinci Code. To the extent that Plaintiff is claiming credit for that success,

the allegations are denied. Further answering, Plaintiff’s participation varied widely with regard

to different novels, and diminished with each successive book after The Da Vinci Code, to the

point that she was participating minimally by the time of Origin.

8. Indeed, after The Da Vinci Code, Blythe and Dan’s lives became a whirlwind of

social engagements and television appearances. But it was Blythe who kept the couple grounded

and enabled Dan to write full time while she continued to do research for the upcoming novels.

Acting together in the same roles that produced The Da Vinci Code, Dan wrote successful novel

after novel, and his work—backed by Blythe’s prolific research—developed a worldwide

following.

Response:

8. Defendant denies that life became more hectic after The Da Vinci Code, with the

exception of a few weeks of in-country travel and television interviews. Defendants also denies

- 9 - 9798804v4

the allegations in paragraph 8. Far from keeping the couple grounded as alleged in the second

sentence of paragraph 8, the opposite is true. Plaintiff began spending copiously as the financial

results of The Da Vinci Code poured in. Quite apart from expenditures that were presumably

intended to benefit both Plaintiff and Defendant, e.g., on extravagant homes as to which the parties

were at odds over expenditures that Defendant found excessive, Plaintiff’s personal expenditures

totaled more than $10,000,000 on her equestrian pastime and her new equestrian companions,

which vastly exceeded Defendant’s personal expenditures. As Plaintiff became more involved in

the equestrian dressage world and her new companions, she became less involved with Defendant

and his works, and increasingly uninhibited in conduct that embarrassed and hurt him.

9. The relationship between Blythe and Dan was based on mutual trust, respect and

honesty—or so she believed. As it turns out, for the last several years of their marriage, Dan

engaged in a systematic pattern of deception and lies. Since at least 2014, Dan lived a secret life,

which included relationships with other women and concealment of substantial funds that

constituted assets of the marriage. Dan carried out his scheme with the help of various third

parties, including financial advisers, agents, and others, who may have participated unwittingly.

Much of his unlawful conduct took place in New Hampshire, but it extended to Europe and the

Caribbean as well.

Response:

9. Defendant denies the characterization of the relationship with Plaintiff as alleged

in the first sentence of paragraph 9. As stated above, the marriage went through a long devolution

beginning in 2004 with her reaction to the newfound wealth, and, in the same year, with her

alienation of Defendant’s family. The deterioration progressed as Plaintiff immersed herself

increasingly in the equestrian dressage world, with new friends and companions, and lavish travel

with others and without her husband. Trust was further eroded when, on several occasions,

Defendant discovered that Plaintiff had made major horse-related purchases without his

- 10 - 9798804v4

knowledge. When Defendant confronted her, she replied, “I bought those things behind your back

because I knew you would say no.”

In November of 2012, an extremely unpleasant and embarrassing incident involving

Defendant’s professional literary team occurred, as referenced above, in connection with the

release of Inferno. Six months later, in May of 2013, after Defendant delivered a significant and

favorably reviewed speech at Lincoln Center, Plaintiff expressed to him her revulsion in watching

him deliver the speech. Soon after that, during a book tour event at Kings College in Dublin,

Ireland, Plaintiff instigated an incident between herself and some of Defendant’s fans that deeply

embarrassed him, after which his publicist told him that Plaintiff was no longer welcome on book

tour.

When Defendant’s beloved mother lay dying in June of 2017 after a courageous battle with

cancer, Plaintiff chose to leave Defendant alone to face the impending death without her as she

vacationed with her companions in the Caribbean, posting on social media photos of their frolics

and heading home only when it was too late to say her final goodbye, causing Defendant’s father

to write when they divorced, “Blythe’s behavior at the time of mom’s death was unforgiveable. . .

. I am delighted you are free, and mom would be too.” Also in 2017, after an episode of particularly

egregious behavior on Plaintiff’s part at a dressage show, one of her trusted employees called

Defendant to say, “if you can’t control her, how are we supposed to.”

Notwithstanding all of the issues and the pain, Defendant did not engage in any “scheme

with the help of various third parties, including financial advisers, agents, and others,” nor did he

conceal “substantial funds,” or any funds at all, when the parties quantified and divided their

substantial assets in 2018 with an “as of” date of July 8, 2018. With regard to allegations regarding

personal relationships, Defendant will not stoop to disparaging Plaintiff as she has him, and will

- 11 - 9798804v4

simply say at this time that such allegations are subject to a motion to dismiss because they do not

relate to a cognizable cause of action and are asserted for the improper purpose of causing him

pain and reputational injury. He therefore requests leave to defer further answering until such

motion is decided.

10. Dan also became exceedingly contentious, initiating heated arguments with Blythe

seemingly over nothing. After over twenty years of marriage, and an even longer working

partnership, Blythe and Dan’s relationship began to deteriorate. In August of 2018, at Dan’s

persistence, the couple physically separated, and Blythe left their marital dream home that they

had spent five years building together. Dan insisted that they simply had “grown apart,” assuring

Blythe that they would still enjoy their “happily-ever-after” as close friends with a continued

mutual respect.

Response:

10. Defendant denies the allegations in the first three sentences in paragraph 10, and

says that the relationship began to deteriorate in or about 2004, as described above, and that it was

Plaintiff who chose to strip the joy from his life by alienating his family, offending his professional

colleagues and his fans, hurting him deeply by proclaiming her revulsion in watching him speak,

and choosing to spend more and more of her time with other companions rather than with him,

even on the occasion when his mother lay dying.

In October of 2018, not long after they physically separated, Plaintiff and Defendant

entered into a final and binding allocation with an as-of date of July 8, 2018, comprised of the

assets that had accumulated from Defendant’s creative works. In addition to receiving very

substantial liquid assets, Plaintiff elected to become the sole owner of several of the couple’s

properties—including three horse farms, one home in New Hampshire, two properties in Florida,

and a villa in the Caribbean—and Defendant acquiesced. Defendant offered the New Hampshire

marital home to her, but she refused it. Nonetheless, in the period since the Final Decree of

- 12 - 9798804v4

Divorce was signed in December of 2019 accepting the parties’ stipulated division of assets,

Plaintiff has failed and refused to sign the necessary papers to transfer to Defendant her interest in

the marital home, the only residential property that he was to retain, despite repeated requests that

she do so as required by the Final Decree. With regard to the final sentence of this extraordinary

paragraph, Defendant admits acknowledging that they had grown apart and expressing the hope

that they could remain friends and treat each other cordially and respectfully.

11. Dan then asked for a divorce, stressing to Blythe that it was very important that he

avoid a public or protracted proceeding. Blythe was taken aback by the concept of divorce, but

acceded to Dan’s request in order to maintain their “amicable relationship.” Despite his claim

that they had grown apart, Blythe still trusted Dan without reservation, and she accepted his

decision believing that they could preserve their friendship and network.

Response:

11. Defendant admits the allegations in the first sentence of paragraph 11, except to say

that the desire to maintain privacy as they divorced was mutual. Defendant is without knowledge

or information sufficient to admit or deny the remaining allegations, which relate to Plaintiff’s

state of mind.

12. Dan also exploited Blythe’s trust in their joint financial advisor, who provided

assurances to Blythe about proceeding with the divorce on the financial terms Dan wanted. Indeed,

Dan made repeated representations to Blythe about the close future they would still share together,

knowing that these were empty promises. All the while, he was siphoning funds from their accounts

and assets for his own benefit. As part of the divorce proceedings, Dan filed a sworn affidavit with

the court, representing that he had disclosed all their marital assets and his known future or

anticipated projects and prospects. That was untrue. However, relying on Dan’s

misrepresentations and omissions, and their decades’-long history together, Blythe agreed to

divide their purported marital assets as of July 2018.

Response:

- 13 - 9798804v4

12. Defendant denies the allegations contained in paragraph 12. Defendant fully and

accurately disclosed all assets in his financial affidavit, including the personal account that Plaintiff

falsely claims was hidden from her. Indeed, Plaintiff disclosed that account on her own financial

affidavit as a joint asset. Far from “siphoning off” joint funds, Defendant caused 99%+ of the

compensation paid to him for his creative works to be placed in joint accounts, from which Plaintiff

transferred millions of dollars, including to a private account called the “Runnymede account” to

which she alone had access. Nor did Defendant withhold information regarding any projects.

Plaintiff was fully aware of Wild Symphony, which was a project of which the primary focus was

to educate children about classical music, that had been under development, at Defendant’s

personal expense, for many, many years. MasterClass, of which Plaintiff also had full knowledge,

was and is an on-line educational effort for which Defendant expected little, if any, return, and in

which he participated because a friend asked him to do so. A television series based on The Lost

Symbol had been proposed; but no agreement, even in the nature of an option, had been entered

into as of the allocation date; and, as Plaintiff is aware, two other proposed television projects had

simply never come to pass. Defendant had not yet begun writing the novel which he is currently

writing. Plaintiff surely knew that Defendant would continue writing novels when she expressly

and in unequivocal terms released any claims of any nature to Defendant’s current and future

projects, in partial consideration of receiving of all of the assets

, and an additional $ in lieu of future alimony.

13. Blythe only recently uncovered the truth about Dan’s secret double life and

fraudulent representations relating to their marital assets and his misconduct. After Blythe

confronted him, Dan admitted not only to an affair with his paramour in Holland, but also that he

had used substantial sums of their money to carry on and maintain the illicit relationship for many

years, all while he continued to live with and come home to Blythe.

- 14 - 9798804v4

Response:

13. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 13, except to admit that he confirmed

to Plaintiff that he had become involved in a serious romantic relationship with a woman in

Holland, identified in the Complaint as “JP.” The relationship began after the marriage with

Plaintiff had deteriorated to one in name only and when Plaintiff chose to spend much of her time

in other places with other companions.

14. Accordingly, Blythe brings this action against Dan for his violation RSA 458, § 15-

b, as well as his misrepresentations, conversion of marital assets, and intentional and negligent

infliction of emotional distress.

Response:

14. Defendant says that paragraph 14 states legal conclusions to which no response is

required. However, to the extent that a response is deemed required, Defendant denies all such

allegations.

III. Parties

15. Plaintiff Blythe Brown is a citizen of the State of New Hampshire, residing in Dover,

New Hampshire, with an address at

.

Response:

15. Defendant admits that Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New Hampshire, and says

that he is without knowledge or information as to whether she generally resides at that address or

at one of the several other properties that were allocated to her pursuant to the stipulated allocation

of assets with an as-of date of July 8, 2018.

16. Defendant Daniel Gerhard Brown is a citizen of the State of New Hampshire,

residing in Rye Beach, with an address at .

- 15 - 9798804v4

Response:

16. Defendant admits that he is a citizen of the State of New Hampshire residing in Rye

Beach.

IV. Jurisdiction & Venue

17. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to RSA 491:7.

Response:

17. Defendant admits that this Court has jurisdiction over suits pursuant to RSA 491:7

but denies that Plaintiff has any good faith basis for bringing an action under that statute. This

Court does not have jurisdiction over any efforts to modify the Final Decree of Divorce, in which

the Family Division of the 10th Circuit approved and entered an order affirming the parties’

stipulated allocation of assets after an in-person conference with counsel for both parties. Only

the latter court has jurisdiction to modify its order.

18. Venue is proper pursuant to RSA 507:9 because Defendant Dan Brown resides in

Rockingham County.

Response:

18. Defendant admits that venue is proper in this county for claims over which this

Court has subject matter jurisdiction, but not otherwise, and if any cause of action has properly

been stated against him, which he denies.

V. Specific Factual Allegations

A. Blythe Brown and Dan Brown Married and Together They Achieved Literary and Financial Success.

19. Blythe and Dan Brown met in Los Angeles thirty years ago, in 1990. At the time,

Blythe was the Director of Artist Development at the National Academy of Songwriters; Dan was

an aspiring songwriter. Blythe tried to help Dan break into the music industry by promoting his

music and using her connections to make introductions in the music business. However, her efforts

- 16 - 9798804v4

proved unsuccessful, and in 1992, the couple relocated from California to Dan’s home state of

New Hampshire, where he got a job as a schoolteacher in Hampton, and where Blythe found work

as a dental assistant. On August 17, 1997, the Browns married.

Response:

19. Defendant admits the allegations in Paragraph 19.

20. Dan continued to write and record music, without success. He then turned his focus

to writing fiction and between 1998 and 2001, he published three books. Blythe served as the

principal researcher for Dan’s history-rich works. Blythe also edited the manuscripts. And due to

her experience in the entertainment and music industry, Blythe was able to contact literary agents

and publishers, book radio shows, write and send out press releases, coordinate interviews, and

arrange book signings in bookstores. Simply stated, theirs was a joint enterprise in the fullest

sense.

Response:

20. Defendant admits the allegations in the first and second sentences of paragraph 20.

Defendant also admits that Plaintiff helped him with research for some of his books, as did his

parents and his brother, but denies that she was the “principal researcher” in the aggregate, a role

filled by Defendant himself, or that she was even meaningfully involved with all of his works.

With regard to the remaining allegations, Defendant says that Plaintiff assisted in other respects

with varying degrees of success, but says that her description of her role is overstated.

21. Success did not come easily or quickly for the literary duo, however. As Dan later

recounted, the second book, Angels & Demons, sold poorly, leaving him and Blythe “heartbroken

as we had put so much work into this book. Once again, we took matters into our own hands,

booking our own signings, booking our own radio shows, and selling books out of our car at local

events.” (Witness Statement of Dan Brown, High Court of Justice, Chancery Division ¶ 66

(December 21, 2005), available at https://www.cesnur.org/2006/mi_brown_eng.htm).

Response:

- 17 - 9798804v4

21. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 21, except to say that he does not

know what Plaintiff means by the phrase “literary duo,” but at no time did he consider his ex-wife

and himself to be a “literary duo.”

22. Undeterred, and more motivated than ever, Blythe and Dan began work on a new

novel—The Da Vinci Code. Blythe was the driving force and the one who developed the premise

of the critical concepts, historical emphases, and complex plot twists of the now famous novel. So

immersed was Blythe in their joint project that she left her job in order to devote herself full time

to the research that produced the intricate blend of historical fact and fiction that became the

hallmark of the book’s success and that captivated readers around the world.

Response:

22. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 22 as stated because Plaintiff

overstates her role. Although Plaintiff was an important contributor to The Da Vinci Code in that,

after seeing a television documentary on the historically controversial Mary Magdalene bloodline

theory, she persuaded him to include that theory with his pre-existing theme relating to dark, secret

religious societies, and helped him with the related research. But, she did not originate that theory,

nor did she develop the “premise” of the book or its “complex plot twists.” In sum, she materially

overstates her role.

23. It was Blythe who lobbied to include and link the core stories of Mary Magdalene,

the sacred feminine, and the Holy Grail. Dan and Blythe together met with the historians and

academics who Blythe’s research showed were most likely to be resources, and Blythe pored over

and annotated ancient texts and history books, and drafted detailed research reports. (See id. ¶

84, 86, 95, 111, 154). Blythe actually had to be persistent in the face of Dan’s reluctance: the

premise of the relationship between Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene made him uncomfortable

at first. “I’m not touching that idea with a ten-foot pole” was his position early on, but she

repeatedly pushed Dan to adopt this fascinating premise. Eventually Dan understood how Blythe’s

ideas could be woven into a tapestry of fact and fiction and he proceeded to write the book based

on the research Blythe had done.

- 18 - 9798804v4

Response:

23. Defendant admits that Plaintiff, after seeing a television documentary on the

subject, lobbied for the inclusion of the theory of the Magdalene bloodline and a greater focus on

the sacred feminine as alleged in the first sentence in paragraph 23, and that she provided

meaningful assistance with the research on these topics. Defendant otherwise says that the

situation is more accurately described in his own words in the quotation of his comments set forth

in the next paragraph.

24. Blythe’s contributions were key to the novel’s worldwide success. In a sworn

witness affidavit, Dan acknowledged Blythe’s pivotal role in developing the novel’s themes and

plot:

Blythe had been a great advocate for the novel focusing even more on the area of the suppression of the sacred feminine –[s]he also lobbied hard for me to find a way to use a theory which concerned [th]e legend of the Holy Grail—the so-called ‘bloodline theory’. . . Initially, I was reluctant to include the bloodline theory at all, finding it too incredible and inaccessible to readers—I thought it was a step too far. However . . . after much discussion and brainstorming with Blythe, I eventually became convinced that I could introduce the idea successfully. Blythe had suggested [to] introduce it as a part of the Goddess worship theme—the lost sacred feminine being embodied by the Church of Magdalene that never was.

(Id. ¶ 119-20).

Response:

24. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 24.

25. In addition to her innovative contributions to plot and character, Blythe also served

as the front-line editor for The Da Vinci Code, and for all of Dan’s subsequent novels, meticulously

combing through the manuscript many times before it was sent to outside editors. Dan highlighted

Blythe’s significant work on The Da Vinci Code in his “Acknowledgments,” writing: “And my

wife, Blythe—art historian, painter, front-line editor, and without a doubt the most astonishingly

talented woman I have ever known.” (The Da Vinci Code, ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, © 2003). In

- 19 - 9798804v4

light of her countless contributions, Dan also dedicated The Da Vinci Code to “BLYTHE . . .

AGAIN. MORE THAN EVER.” (Id., DEDICATION).

Response:

25. Defendant admits that Plaintiff read and proposed edits to The Da Vinci Code, as

did other family members, before it went to his professional editor. He also admits dedicating the

book to his then-wife, but states that her contributions were important but not “countless” as she

alleges. He denies the allegations as stated in relation to “all of Dan’s subsequent novels,” and

says that her participation steadily declined after The Da Vinci Code as she turned her time and

interest to other activities and other companions.

26. When The Da Vinci Code was first published in 2003, the response to the mystery

thriller was nothing short of astounding. The novel completely dominated The New York Times

best-seller list for more than two years and was an international smash hit, published in 72

countries around the globe; Dan Brown quickly became one of the world’s most famous (and

richest) authors, a veritable force in the literary world and a true celebrity. In 2006, Columbia

Pictures adapted The Da Vinci Code into a film starring Tom Hanks, which grossed over $760

million worldwide. To date, over eighty million copies of the book have been sold.

Response:

26. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 26, except to say that he has

insufficient information to confirm whether he is “one of the world’s most famous (and richest)

authors, a veritable force in the literary world and a true celebrity.”

27. The success of The Da Vinci Code was just the beginning. Together, Dan and Blythe

went on to work on three more novels, using the same formula that had proved so successful:

Blythe owned the researching and front-line editing, Dan penned the novels, and together they

brainstormed the storylines and plot twists. Right after The Da Vinci Code, the couple next turned

their attention to a follow-up novel entitled The Lost Symbol, which similarly rose to the top of the

best-seller lists and was again dedicated by Dan “FOR BLYTHE.” (The Lost Symbol,

- 20 - 9798804v4

DEDICATION, © 2009). The next big hit was Inferno, published in 2013; not only did Blythe

perform her usual research and editorial magic, but she once again pushed Dan in the right

direction by formulating the ending he ultimately used for the novel. Columbia Pictures turned

their earlier novel, Angels & Demons (which had since also become a best-seller) into a successful

film, as well as the 2013 novel, Inferno.

Response:

27. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 27 as they relate to “three more

novels,” and to the extent that they imply that Plaintiff’s participation did not steadily decrease

after The Da Vinci Code. Further answering, Defendant says that the apex of any assistance from

Plaintiff with his books related to The Da Vinci Code and that her participation steadily waned in

each novel thereafter, as her time and attention were increasingly elsewhere. Defendant states that

Plaintiff’s claim that she formulated the ending of Inferno, as she now claims, is inconsistent with

his memory, and, as he understands it, with that of his publishing team. In short, Plaintiff has

overstated her role in paragraph 27.

28. Along with these repeated successes came a coterie of advisors, publishing industry

professionals, literary agents, literary attorneys, and one of the world’s leading publishing

houses—all of whom Blythe trusted to act in both hers and Dan’s best interests.

Response:

28. Defendant admits that his team expanded with his commercial success. He is

without knowledge or information as to Plaintiff’s expectations of his team, but does not admit,

nor does he believe that they would confirm, that they owed a duty to her.

29. All this time, Blythe tried to keep their lives grounded despite their new celebrity.

During these years, Blythe and Dan promised to “keep us number one.” They continued to reside

in Rye Beach, New Hampshire, became involved in philanthropy, and started the Dan and Blythe

Brown Charitable Foundation.

- 21 - 9798804v4

Response:

29. Defendant denies that Plaintiff “tried to keep their lives grounded despite their new

celebrity” and says that the opposite is true, as Plaintiff began an escalating pattern of excessive

spending, often without his knowledge and generally without his consent even though she was

spending money paid to him for his creative works. Defendant admits the allegations in the second

sentence of paragraph 29 with regard to the period immediately after publication of The Da Vinci

Code, but says that Plaintiff spent increasingly more time devoted to, and money on, the equestrian

dressage world and her new companions, and less and less time with Defendant. Inevitably, they

grew ever further apart until their marriage existed in name only.

30. When Blythe wasn’t working on research for the novels, she went back to a pastime

she had enjoyed as a young adult: riding and showing horses. She and Dan developed a particular

interest in an ancient breed that originated in the Friesland Provence in Holland—called a

Friesian. Together the Browns purchased champion level Friesian horses, investing in their

training and caretaking, and Blythe began regularly attending equestrian events and showing their

horses.

Response:

30. Defendant denies the first portion of the first sentence in paragraph 30, and says

that Plaintiff devoted herself to her interest in riding and showing dressage horses at the expense

of the work she had previously done assisting with researching and editing. Defendant is without

knowledge or information to respond to the allegation that riding and showing horses was a

“pastime [Plaintiff] had enjoyed as a young adult,” as he did not meet her until she was in her late

30s; but, he notes that she spent at least $10,000,000 on this pastime before they divided the assets

in 2018. Defendant denies that he personally developed a “particular interest” in Friesian horses;

and Plaintiff well understood that he did not. Indeed, in an argument in 2016 about an impending

- 22 - 9798804v4

horse-related expenditure that came to Defendant’s attention, she angrily pronounced that he was

“not a horse-person,” that he therefore should have no voice in decisions about Runnymede horse

farm, and that perhaps the time had come for a divorce if he was unable to see the necessity for

the expenditure. Although Defendant at an earlier time took riding lessons for a period of about a

year in an effort to have an activity that he could share with Plaintiff and perhaps lessen the

growing chasm between them, he was not personally interested in showing the horses, did not

participate in the equestrian events that frequently took Plaintiff away, and spent little time at the

various horse farms that she acquired and now owns.

B. Blythe Brown and Dan Brown Divorce in December 2019.

31. As stated above, starting in 2014, Blythe began to observe changes in Dan’s

personality and behavior. He started to act distant, dressed differently, and instigated arguments

with Blythe over inconsequential matters for no apparent reason. In the summer of 2018, Dan

informed Blythe that he was no longer happy in their marriage and wanted a separation. Blythe

did not want to separate, but at Dan’s request, in August 2018, she moved out of their marital

home.

Response:

31. Defendant denies the allegations in the first two sentences of paragraph 31, and

says that it was Plaintiff, not he, who changed, and that such change began in or about 2004 after

the success of The Da Vinci Code. After numerous incidents, some of which are described in

response to other paragraphs, and several refusals by Plaintiff to participate in marriage counseling,

Defendant believed that the marriage could not be salvaged. By the end of 2014, the marriage

existed in name only, although Plaintiff and Defendant kept up the public persona of a married

couple both socially and professionally from time to time. Defendant admits that he told Plaintiff

in the summer of 2018 that he was not happy in their marriage, but says that he had conveyed this

message on several earlier occasions, including by asking her unsuccessfully on multiple occasions

- 23 - 9798804v4

to join him in marriage counseling. 2018 was the culmination, not the commencement, of the

deterioration of the marriage. Defendant denies that he asked Plaintiff to move out of the New

Hampshire house, which was of more than sufficient size to permit each of them to live there

without interfering with the other, and, rather, says that he had previously invited her to remain.

She declined.

32. Dan’s claim that he and Blythe had simply “grown apart,” but could “remain best

friends,” was a ruse that Dan created at the time, knowing that Blythe considered him to be honest

and forthcoming and therefore trusted him. That trust, she now knows, was gravely misplaced.

Response:

32. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 32, except to admit that he stated that

he and Plaintiff had grown apart over the last several years and that he hoped they could remain

friends.

33. Claiming he wanted to avoid a protracted public proceeding, Dan told Blythe that

they had no secrets between them, and he persuaded Blythe that she had full knowledge of the

nature and extent of the assets they had acquired during the marriage. This was untrue. Dan had,

for a number of years, secretly siphoned funds from their marital assets, at least in part to finance

his activities with his mistresses, including his relationship with “JP”—a young horse trainer who

lived in Holland. In furtherance of his scheme of misrepresentations and financial deceit, Dan

apparently obtained the help of the Browns’ financial advisors to proceed with the divorce in the

manner and with the terms Dan wanted.

Response:

33. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 33, and says that Plaintiff was in fact

informed of the totality of the assets at the time of the 2018 allocation, including the personal

account that she contends was hidden from her. Each had access to the other’s records in the

possession of their joint financial advisor during the negotiation of their stipulation of allocation

- 24 - 9798804v4

of assets in 2018. If either of them cared how much the other had expended from Defendant’s

earnings, they could have checked. Had she cared, Plaintiff could readily have determined that

Defendant’s personal expenditures were a small fraction of her own personal expenditures, and,

unlike hers, his personal expenditures were insubstantial in relation to the total assets (all derived

from compensation paid to him for his creative works).

34. Blythe and Dan agreed to divide what Blythe believed were their marital assets as

of July 2018, and this division of property was memorialized in affidavits and a Stipulation for

Final Decree of Divorce filed in the Portsmouth, New Hampshire Family Division.

Response:

34. Plaintiff admits that the parties agreed in October of 2018 to divide what was in

fact the totality of the assets as of July 8, 2018, and that this allocation was memorialized in the

documents indicated in paragraph 34. Defendant says that he has insufficient knowledge to

confirm what Plaintiff “believed,” but that her beliefs were in error if she thought that New

Hampshire law imposed an automatic equal division of assets during the course of the marriage.

In any event, Plaintiff received of those assets with each share valued at over $

plus an additional $ in lieu of future alimony.

35. Dan submitted his financial affidavit sworn under oath to the court on October 24,

2019 (the “Financial Affidavit”). In that document, he declared that he had “fully disclosed all

income and all assets having any substantial value” and that he understood his duty “to update

the information provided in this financial affidavit for each court hearing.” Additionally, with

respect to his “projects anticipated or in the works,” Dan indicated: “None.” Dan knew that both

statements about the accuracy of his financial status and the supposed non-existence of “projects

anticipated or in the works” were false.

Response:

- 25 - 9798804v4

35. Defendant admits that he submitted his financial affidavit as alleged on October 24,

2019, and that Plaintiff likewise did so, but denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 35. By

agreement of the parties, they divided and stated their assets in October of 2019 with an as-of date

of July 8, 2018, with no intent of updating their asset statements or their allocation of assets on

any future date. With this understanding, each certified that she or he had complied with Rule

1.25-A regarding mandatory disclosure. Further answering, Defendant says that the statement of

assets in the financial affidavits was drafted by Plaintiff’s attorney based on information obtained

from the parties’ joint financial advisor. The affidavits therefore each stated an identical list of

assets, as confirmed by the financial advisor. Defendant denies the remaining allegations in

paragraph 35 and says that, in consideration of more than $ in assets allocated to her,

amounting to of the total assets, plus an additional $ in lieu of future alimony,

Plaintiff expressly assigned and transferred to Defendant and waived any and all right, title and

interest in and to Defendant’s current and future books and other creative works and any

compensation derived therefrom.

36. On December 4, 2019, the court accepted the Stipulation and financial affidavits

and granted the final Divorce Decree. The Browns’ marriage was over.

Response:

36. Defendant admits the allegations in paragraph 36.

37. Throughout the Browns’ marriage, Dan publicly portrayed himself as someone

who was on a constant spiritual journey to betterment—a virtue he apparently did not follow. In

truth, he led a double life for years.

Response:

37. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 37, other than to admit that he strives

for betterment.

- 26 - 9798804v4

C. Blythe Brown Discovers the Truth About Dan Brown.

38. It was not until shortly after the divorce order was entered that Blythe began to

learn that Dan had misled and deceived her in order to deprive Blythe of her rightful share of the

fruits of their joint labors and to protect his reputation.

Response:

38. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 38, except to say that he is without

knowledge or information as to what Plaintiff believes she learned after the divorce. Further

answering, Defendant says that Plaintiff received of the total assets with her share having an

estimated value of $ pursuant to their stipulated allocation of assets in 2018, plus an

additional $ in lieu of future alimony. The personal account of which she complains, in

addition to being disclosed in both his financial affidavit and hers, accounted for well less than 1%

of the total assets. Plaintiff’s personal spending from her Runnymede account, as well as from the

Browns’ joint accounts, exceeded Plaintiff’s personal spending more than ten times over.

39. Indeed, for many years—while still coming home to Blythe—Dan was having an

affair with JP, a horse trainer in her twenties living in Holland. Blythe was actually the one who

introduced her then-husband to JP. In late 2013, Blythe had hired JP to travel to the United States

from Holland to help train the Browns’ Friesian horse, “Daniel de G.” JP became—at least to

Blythe’s belief—a friend and confidante. In 2014, JP helped train Daniel de G in New Hampshire.

That same year, JP even attended—at Blythe’s invitation—Dan’s 50th birthday party that Blythe

threw for him.

Response:

39. Defendant denies that he was “coming home to Blythe,” other than in the sense that

they shared the same large house with different bedrooms on those occasions when they were both

in Rye Beach. Defendant acknowledges that JP, a 29-year-old Dutch horse-trainer, came to the

United States to help Plaintiff train the horse Daniel de G, and that she was a guest at a lavish party

- 27 - 9798804v4

hosted by Plaintiff to showcase her farm. He further admits that at a point in time later than that

alleged by Plaintiff, and when Plaintiff and Defendant were married in name only, the relationship

with JP became romantic and continues to this day.

40. And when JP complained of shoulder pain from a botched surgery in Holland,

Blythe extended herself to JP, including arranging and paying for (with Dan’s knowledge and

approval) her corrective surgery in New Hampshire in October 2014. Blythe then had JP stay at

the Browns’ Rye Beach home while she recovered from her surgery. It was during that time, when

Blythe was away at a horse show, that Dan and JP began what would be a six year-long affair

(and apparently continues at the present time), all conducted secretly, starting in Blythe’s own

home.

Response:

40. Defendant admits the allegations in the first two sentences of paragraph 40, but

notes that Plaintiff left her houseguest alone for several days while Plaintiff attended a horseshow.

Defendant admits that there came a point at which he and JP began a romantic relationship that

continues to this day. He denies the allegations concerning when and where that relationship began

and says that his marriage to Plaintiff was one in name only by the time his romantic relationship

with JP began.

41. Dan’s activities with JP are material to this lawsuit because unbeknownst to Blythe,

Dan removed substantial sums of money from the Browns’ accounts and from their marital assets

and using those funds to buy JP extravagant gifts, and to finance an entire horse training business

in Holland for her.

Response:

41. Defendant admits that he became JP’s sponsor, but denies that he depleted “marital

assets,” which did not even exist until the commencement of divorce proceedings, or assets to

- 28 - 9798804v4

which Plaintiff had any entitlement as alleged in paragraph 41 and denies that the amount of his

sponsorship and gifts to JP make his relationship with JP material to this lawsuit.

42. Dan’s financial scheme included his purchases of champion-level Friesian horses

for JP to train, show, and use to promote her new business, which he had financed with his and

Blythe’s assets. Dan was careful to conceal his actions from Blythe. For example, Dan did not

withdraw large lump sums all at once, but instead structured the transactions into multiple wire

transfers and withdrawals from their accounts, and even transferred large sums through accounts

he had established with agents that Blythe knew nothing about.

Response:

42. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 42 except to admit that he became

JP’s sponsor at a point in time when his marriage to Plaintiff was one in name only, and that he

removed approximately $44,000 from his joint account with Plaintiff for that purpose. Further

answering, he provided other funds as his sponsorship required from his personal account, which

account he used largely for gifts to family and friends and for donations to charities of his personal

choice. The funds passing through that account amounted to well less than 1% of the total assets

and a small fraction of the money expended by Plaintiff from his earnings, both from their joint

account and from the Runnymede account to which she transferred millions of dollars from the

joint account. The funds that passed through Defendant’s personal account, as was apparent from

the information made available to Plaintiff at the time of allocation of assets through their joint

financial advisor, amounted to a small fraction of the amounts that Plaintiff spent, largely without

his knowledge, from the joint account and from her personal Runnymede account. All funds in all

accounts were derived from payments for Defendant’s work.

43. Dan caused the Browns’ advisors to organize clandestine wires from the couple’s

marital assets for various expensive purchases for Dan’s mistress in Holland, in order to mask

their true destination. Additionally, a number of the wires used to purchase the Friesian horses

- 29 - 9798804v4

included the names “Daniel G. Brown” and “Jason Kaufman” (Dan’s editor) from an account

Dan left to Mr. Kaufman in the event of Dan’s death. The wires were secretly done this way so

that Blythe would be none the wiser when it came to Dan’s financial fraud and personal

transgressions.

Response:

43. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 43. Further answering, Mr.

Kaufman’s name was involved only because his address was the default address for wire

confirmation if Defendant’s email address failed. The account from which the sponsorship wires

were sent was bequeathed to Plaintiff, not Mr. Kaufman, in the event of Defendant’s death.

44. Dan appears to have misled one of the Browns’ financial advisors by making the

false statement that the secret wires were for the purpose of buying a prize Friesian horse named

“LimiTed Edition” from Holland as a “surprise birthday gift” for Blythe. But that was a lie. Dan

did purchase multiple Friesian horses in Holland, including LimiTed Edition. However, none was

for a surprise birthday gift for his wife—that was Dan’s ruse—but for the use of his young mistress,

JP, and the training business he had secretly financed for her.

Response:

44. Defendant admits that, in order to prevent embarrassment to both parties and an

awkward situation for their joint financial advisor, he disingenuously told the advisor that the funds

earmarked for the acquisition of Limited Edition were because he was purchasing a gift for his

wife’s birthday. In fact, he was purchasing Limited Edition as a gift for JP, and, indeed, he

promptly gifted the horse to her after the acquisition occurred in November of 2016.

45. On July 29, 2015, Dan surreptitiously financed the purchase of a horse (named

“Da Vinci” by JP in homage to Dan) at a cost of $44,444. After the divorce order was final, and

when confronted by Blythe about what she had discovered relating to his wire transfers used to

purchase Da Vinci, Dan admitted that Da Vinci was one of many purchases he had made

personally to establish a new horse training business in Holland for JP.

- 30 - 9798804v4

Response:

45. Defendant admits that he purchased a horse named Da Vinci for JP at a cost of

$44,444 as part of his sponsorship of her career, and that he did so from the joint account. Further

answering, that payment constituted the only sponsorship funds paid from the joint account, and

all funds in all accounts came in any event from his earnings. He further admits acknowledging

the wire and the sponsorship when Plaintiff confronted him after the divorce was final, but says

all of the financial records of his expenditures were available to Plaintiff before the allocation of

the assets and before the divorce. Plaintiff did not request the information, perhaps because her

personal expenditures exceeded his by a factor of more than ten times.

46. Dan’s use of funds from the Brown’s marital assets went beyond financing JP’s

business and paying for prize horses for her to train. Dan also financed and provided JP with

funds from his and Blythe’s monies and accounts ranging from $3,000 to $15,000. He also used

his and Blythe’s assets to refurbish an apartment for JP where she was training horses, and he

bought JP other expensive gifts, including a two-horse transport truck and a new car. The net

effect of these transgressions substantially reduced the marital estate.

Response:

46. Defendant denies that he used any funds from any account in which Plaintiff shared

apart from the $44,444 payment referenced above. All other payments were from a personal

account, funded exclusively from his own earnings, and dwarfed in size by Plaintiff’s expenditures

on her equestrian dressage pastime and her new companions from the joint account and from her

Runnymede account.

47. Dan then set in motion his purchase of a highly coveted, prize-winning Friesian

horse named “LimiTed Edition” (registered name: Kanger Ter Meer) for $345,000. LimiTed

Edition was to catapult JP’s horse training business and show career into the big leagues. Dan

apparently told the prior owner of LimiTed Edition, as well as the couple’s financial advisor, that

- 31 - 9798804v4

LimiTed Edition was to be a “surprise” gift for Blythe’s birthday. Blythe would have been

delighted with LimiTed Edition as a surprise birthday present had the horse actually been for her,

because LimiTed Edition was (and remains) at the top of its breed. Alas, Dan had other plans.

Response:

47. Defendant acknowledges informing the parties’ joint financial advisor that he was

purchasing Limited Edition as a surprise birthday gift for Plaintiff, in order to avoid embarrassment

to both parties and creating an awkward situation for their joint financial advisor. In fact, he had

no intention of buying the horse for Plaintiff and was buying the remainder interest for JP. Further

answering, Defendant says that he and JP each owned 25% of the horse when he purchased the

remaining 50% of the horse in November of 2016 for JP. The seller was well aware that Defendant

was purchasing the remainder interest for JP, and that Defendant was gifting his 75% to JP. Once

Defendant gifted his 75% interest to JP after the November 2016 purchase, she became the sole

owner of the horse.

48. On April 28, 2016, Dan issued the first wire for $122,294, purchasing 50% of

LimiTed Edition. On November 10, 2016, he wired the remaining $223,000 to complete his

purchase of the horse. Both transfers were in Dan’s and Mr. Kaufman’s names in order to avoid

detection, and secretly executed without Blythe’s knowledge. JP and her new business benefitted

exponentially from LimiTed Edition. Although Dan became the sole owner of the horse and asked

LimiTed Edition’s prior owner for a receipt indicating that Dan owned 100% and JP owned 0%,

JP would ride, care for and publicly tout her “ownership” of LimiTed Edition, which has led to

major career opportunities for the young rider, including a potential Olympic bid.

Response:

48. Defendant admits that he purchased 25% of Limited Edition for himself and 25%

for JP in April of 2016 from a seller who continued to own 50% of the horse. He denies that he

did so from funds to which Plaintiff had any entitlement, and further denies that the transfer was

- 32 - 9798804v4

in whole or in part in Mr. Kaufman’s name. (Rather, the default address was to Mr. Kaufman if

Defendant’s email address failed.). Defendant further admits that he purchased the seller’s

remaining 50% ownership interest in November of 2016, but denies that he retained ownership.

Rather, shortly after the acquisition, Defendant gifted his 75% to JP, the rider who had consistently

ridden and trained Limited Edition for seven years.

49. Dan’s improper use of marital funds for JP’s benefit was not limited to buying these

prize horses. In between the payments for LimiTed Edition, on June 27, 2016, Dan arranged for a

wire to be issued in his and Mr. Kaufman’s names for $155,000 (€120,000) to cover a year of JP’s

rent for her apartment and other expenses.

Response:

49. Defendant denies that there were marital assets as defined in RSA 458:16-a prior

to any divorce being filed and during the marriage, and he therefore denies that there were “marital

funds” used for any items as alleged in paragraph 49. He further denies that the wire was in whole

or in part in Mr. Kaufman’s name. Further answering, Defendant says that the information in

paragraph 49 was available to Plaintiff before the allocation of assets had she cared enough to ask,

which she did not do. Defendant’s personal expenditures were a fraction of the sums expended by

Plaintiff from the joint account and from her Runnymede account without Defendant’s knowledge

or consent, which may account for Plaintiff’s decision not to seek information for his expenditures

made before January 1, 2018.

50. On February 10, 2017, JP’s then-employer in Holland announced that JP was

starting her very own horse business, thanks to the generous support of an “anonymous sponsor.”

In an interview with a Dutch magazine, JP praised her new “sponsor,” who “puts such trust” in

her and “wants to remain anonymous.” (Hoefslag, February 10, 2017,

https://www.dehoefslag.nl/laatste-nieuws/dressuur/judith-pietersen-nu-nog-meer-genieten-

- 33 - 9798804v4

limited-edition.html). That “anonymous sponsor” was Dan Brown, who was secretly using

substantial sums of the Browns’ marital assets without Blythe’s knowledge.

Response:

50. Defendant admits the allegations in the first two sentences of paragraph 50 and

denies the allegations in the third sentence, except to admit that he was JP’s sponsor. Defendant

denies that there were marital assets as defined in RSA 458:16-a prior to any divorce being filed

and during the marriage, and he therefore denies that there were “marital funds” used for any items

as alleged in paragraph 50.

51. A few months later, LimiTed Edition was named “KFPS Horse of the Year.”

Meanwhile Blythe had no knowledge of her husband’s affair and financial misfeasance and

remained friends with JP. In fact, in January 2018, Blythe travelled to Holland to visit JP and

attended an annual stallion show, at which JP rode LimiTed Edition.

Response:

51. Defendant denies that he engaged in financial misfeasance, is without knowledge

sufficient to admit or deny whether Plaintiff and JP “remained friends,” and admits the remaining

allegations in paragraph 50, except to say that the horse’s name is now styled simply as “Limited

Edition.”

52. None of the valuable assets that Dan had siphoned off, including to JP—such as

the Friesian horses LimiTed Edition and Da Vinci—were disclosed by Dan to Blythe at any time,

in any context.2

Response:

2 Blythe Brown has initiated a legal proceeding in the Netherlands in connection with JP to enforce Blythe’s ownership rights with respect to certain assets that Blythe believes were transferred by Dan from the United States to Holland.

- 34 - 9798804v4

52. Defendant denies that he “siphoned off” any assets to which Plaintiff had any

entitlement, and says that she had full access to records of his personal expenditures over the course

of the marriage—which were a small fraction of her own personal expenditures—before the

allocation of assets. Defendant admits that he did not “disclose” his personal spending from his

own earnings, any more than she disclosed to him her substantially greater spending of his earnings

from the joint account and from the Runnymede account to which she transferred millions of

dollars and over which she had sole control, over the course of the marriage.

53. In January 2020, Blythe confronted Dan about the secret wire transfers she had

just recently learned about. At that point, Dan acknowledged that he had lied and misled Blythe,

both personally and financially, telling his now former wife, “I’ve done bad things with a lot of

people.” When pressed further by Blythe, the details that Dan went on to unveil were completely

shocking to her.

Response:

53. Defendant admits that Plaintiff confronted him in January 2020 about various wire

transfers, but says that those wire transfers concerned expenditures as to which information was

available to Plaintiff before the asset allocation. Defendant denies the statements attributed to him

in paragraph 53, but admits that he acknowledged the wires.

54. First, Dan admitted that he’d had an affair with a local hairdresser with whom

Blythe was acquainted. These admissions caused Blythe immediate, extreme emotional distress.

Response:

54. Defendant denies that he told Plaintiff that he had had an affair with a local

hairdresser, by which Plaintiff is referring to their mutual hairdresser who was his longtime friend.

Rather, the conversation was as follows: Plaintiff stated in February of 2020 that she had heard

that he was seeing their mutual hairdresser, and he acknowledges that he told Plaintiff that they

- 35 - 9798804v4

had been out on a few dates, including at least one with her sister and her daughter. He denies that

Plaintiff could have experienced “extreme emotional distress” from any such statements.

55. Just a few days later, on January 8, 2020, Blythe found out that Dan also had an

affair and was in a serious relationship with JP. And, Dan said, his relationship with JP “has and

will continue.” Of course, Dan did not divulge the financial aspects and fraud associated with the

affair, and that he had siphoned off marital funds for JP’s benefit.

Response:

55. Defendant acknowledges that he told Plaintiff about his serious romantic

relationship with JP and his expectation that it would continue. Defendant says he did not

“divulge” the matters alleged in the last sentence of paragraph 55 because they are false.

56. At the time, Dan claimed that the affair had started “only” in September 2018 when

he supposedly ran into JP during a trip to Holland. That was a false statement. In fact, as he later

admitted, in writing, his affair with JP had started six years earlier—back in 2014, when Blythe

first introduced the two:

Response:

56. Defendant admits the allegations in the first two sentences of paragraph 56, denies

that his email was intended to confirm the time period stated by Plaintiff, and denies that he told

her that the relationship started at the time or under the circumstances now alleged, which are

incorrect.

57. Over the next several weeks Blythe learned that her now former husband had been

secretly plundering significant sums of their marital assets—and using the people Blythe trusted

most to help him do so—for years. For example, Dan admitted that he used their money to secretly

fund and sponsor JP’s horse business—including purchasing the prized horses Da Vinci and

LimiTed Edition with their marital assets—and to support JP’s lifestyle and extracurricular

activities.

Response:

- 36 - 9798804v4

57. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 57. Defendant denies that there were

marital assets as defined in RSA 458:16-a prior to any divorce being filed and during the marriage.

Further answering, Defendant says his sponsorship of JP came from his personal account, which

comprised well less than 1% of the total assets and says Plaintiff’s expenditures on her personal

interests and expenditures exceeded his by a factor of ten times or more.

58. Blythe is informed, believes and therefore alleges that Dan had also cheated on her

with a political official at the Browns’ vacation home on Anguilla, and had also carried on a

relationship with his personal trainer, all while Dan and Blythe were still married. On information

and belief, Dan also used his and Blythe’s assets to carry on these affairs as well.

Response:

58. Defendant says that he is filing a Motion to Dismiss at or close to the time of the

filing of this Answer. Because he does not wish to be drawn into Plaintiff’s fishing expeditions, or

to denigrate Plaintiff with allegations that are likewise based on belief and conjecture, he requests

leave to answer further if necessary after the Motion to Dismiss is decided.

59. Dan also lied to and misled Blythe about his work and future projects. In his

financial affidavit, Dan swore under oath that he had no “projects anticipated or in the works.”

This was a material misstatement, made as part of Dan’s overall scheme to deprive Blythe of the

truth and her fair and equitable share of the marital assets.

Response:

59. Defendant incorporates by reference his response to paragraph 12 and otherwise

denies the allegations in paragraph 59. Further answering, in consideration of receiving an

allocation with an estimated value of more than $ , comprising of the total assets,

plus $ in addition in lieu of future alimony, all generated from compensation paid to

Defendant for his creative works, Plaintiff expressly assigned and transferred to Defendant and

- 37 - 9798804v4

waived any and all right, title and interest in and to Defendant’s current and future books and other

creative works and any compensation derived therefrom.

60. As it turns out, Dan was at the time working on a new television series, “Langdon,”

picked up by NBCUniversal Studios, based on the novels the Browns created together, including

The Lost Symbol. In addition to that, Dan was also working on at least a MasterClass series, a

new children’s book, music project and app, Wild Symphony, as well as planning for and writing

additional novels in his Robert Langdon series.

Response:

60. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 60. Further answering, Defendant

says that the television series was not yet in the works by the allocation “as of” date, to wit, July

8, 2018, and that Wild Symphony, an educational children’s project that Defendant was self-

funding, had been known to Plaintiff for years. MasterClass, in which Defendant agreed to

participate at the request of a friend, was not entered into as a revenue-generator (and, indeed, has

and will generate little financially), and Plaintiff was well aware of the project at the time of the

allocation because she was present at the house when the production team came to “scout” the

location. In any event, Plaintiff expressly assigned and transferred to Defendant and waived any

and all right, title and interest in and to Defendant’s current and future books and other creative

works and any compensation derived therefrom. Further answering, Defendant says that The Lost

Symbol, on which the television series is to be based, was not a novel that “the Browns created

together,” although she performed some research and editing.

61. Dan stands to make millions from these projects, which is undoubtedly why he hid

them from Blythe.

Response:

- 38 - 9798804v4

61. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 61. Further answering, Defendant

says that the projects of which Plaintiff speaks fell into two categories: those of which she had

knowledge when the allocation was agreed upon (i.e., current), and those that were not yet in

process (i.e., future). Further answering, Plaintiff expressly assigned and transferred to

Defendant and waived any and all right, title and interest in and to Defendant’s current and

future books and other creative works and any compensation derived therefrom.

D. As a Result of Dan Brown’s Misconduct, Blythe Brown Has Suffered Monetary Damages, and Has Suffered and Continues to Suffer Emotional Distress.

62. Dan’s actions, as alleged in this Complaint, have caused Blythe substantial

damages, in an amount to be determined at trial. In addition to those damages, Blythe has also

suffered from severe and ongoing emotional distress and physical symptoms that negatively affect

her quality of life.

Response:

62. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 62. Further answering, Defendant

says that Plaintiff has no cognizable claim for emotional distress purportedly suffered because of

information that she claims to have learned after her marriage, relating to conduct that allegedly

occurred during her marriage, particularly at a time that the parties were married in name only.

Further answering, Defendant says that Plaintiff released all claims relating to conduct during the

marriage for substantial compensation.

63. Blythe’s sense of pain, humiliation, betrayal, and anguish is unbearable and

debilitating. She has great difficulty eating or sleeping, and Dan has caused her to suffer

significant emotional distress. In emails to Dan, she has written: “I feel like [I’m] dying, I haven’t

slept for literally 3 nights, I can’t eat anything” and “I can’t even begin to put into words how

debilitating this pain is – other than I now understand when someone says ‘they died of a broken

heart’ – because this does truly feel like dying.” Although finally admitting to his years of

deception, Dan has yet to remedy the harm Blythe has suffered.

- 39 - 9798804v4

Response:

63. Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to respond to allegations

about Plaintiff’s state of mind. Further answering, as a legal matter, Defendant says that Plaintiff

has no legally cognizable claim for emotional distress damages under these circumstances. As a

factual matter, Defendant notes that the alleged reaction appears not to comport with the

conclusion of a marriage that existed in name only for almost six years and with social media

postings post-divorce indicating that Plaintiff has been enjoying a happy life of luxury, showing

horses and traveling extensively with her companions.

COUNT I VIOLATION OF N.H. REV. STAT. § 458:15-b

64. Plaintiff Blythe Brown re-alleges and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Response:

64. Defendant repeats and incorporates his response to each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

65. Defendant Dan Brown has repeatedly misrepresented and omitted material facts,

information and data regarding the Browns’ marital assets and finances, and Dan Brown’s assets,

finances and projects, including but not limited to statements Dan Brown made under oath in his

Financial Affidavit within the meaning of RSA 458, § 15-b.

Response:

65. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 65. Further answering, Defendant

says that the purportedly “secret” account was disclosed in his financial affidavit, a fact that was

drawn to the attention of Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint, in case they

had actually missed it. Defendant also says that funds in his disclosed personal account did not

constitute “marital assets” to which Plaintiff had a claim of right during the course of the marriage

- 40 - 9798804v4

and were not, in any event, material in relation to the total assets. Further answering, at the time

of the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant claiming that he perjured himself when she knew that he had not.

66. Dan Brown knew these statements, representations and omissions were false.

Response:

66. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 66, and, further answering, affirms

that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018, were

accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was drawn to the attention

of Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of

the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he had not.

67. As a result of Dan Brown’s knowingly false statements and misrepresentations in

his Financial Affidavit, Blythe Brown has suffered and continues to suffer harm. Pursuant to RSA

458, § 15-b, Blythe Brown is entitled to recover three times her actual damages and her reasonable

attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in this action.

Response:

67. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 67. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

- 41 - 9798804v4

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he had not.

COUNT II FRAUD

68. Plaintiff Blythe Brown re-alleges and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Response:

68. Defendant repeats and incorporates his response to each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

69. Defendant Dan Brown misrepresented and omitted material facts, information and

data to Blythe Brown regarding his misuse of their marital assets and about his future projects.

Response:

69. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 69, and, further answering, affirms

that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as of July 8, 2018 as was Plaintiff’s, were

accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was drawn to the attention

of Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of

the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

- 42 - 9798804v4

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he had not.

70. In particular, Dan Brown fraudulently concealed his misuse of substantial amounts

of the couple’s marital assets. Dan Brown also falsely and fraudulently indicated that he had no

projects anticipated or in the works, despite his upcoming work on a television series, new novels

and a new children’s project at the time he made the false statements under oath.

Response:

70. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 70. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was drawn to the

attention of Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at

the time of the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual

financial advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various

accounts, and each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any

account. Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous

and libelous allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not.

71. Dan Brown made these representations with knowledge of their falsity or with a

conscious indifference to their truth.

Response:

71. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 71. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was drawn to the

attention of Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at

the time of the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual

- 43 - 9798804v4

financial advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various

accounts, and each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any

account. Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous

and libelous allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not.

72. Dan Brown made such statements with the intent and knowledge to cause Blythe

Brown to rely on them.

Response:

72. Defendant denies that he made any misrepresentations in his financial affidavit, and

says that he expected Plaintiff to rely on his truthful representations. Further answering, at the

time of the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual

financial advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various

accounts, and each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any

account. Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous

and libelous allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not.

73. Blythe Brown justifiably and reasonably relied on Dan Brown’s representations.

Response:

73. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 73, insofar as they imply that Dan

Brown’s representations were false. They were not. Rather, they were accurate and complete, and

there were no omissions.

74. As a result of Dan Brown’s fraudulent misrepresentations, theft and misuse of

marital assets, Blythe Brown has suffered and continues to suffer harm.

Response:

- 44 - 9798804v4

74. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 74. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not.

COUNT III FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION

75. Plaintiff Blythe Brown re-alleges and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Response:

75. Defendant repeats and incorporates his response to each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

76. Defendant Dan Brown has repeatedly misrepresented and omitted material facts,

information and data regarding the Browns’ marital assets and finances, and Dan Brown’s assets,

finances and projects.

Response:

76. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 76. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

- 45 - 9798804v4

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not.

77. Dan Brown knew these representations and omissions were false and he made them

with the fraudulent intent to induce Blythe into an agreement and so that Blythe Brown would rely

on them.

Response:

77. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 77. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant.

78. Blythe Brown justifiably and reasonably relied on Dan Brown’s representations.

Response:

78. Defendant affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was

Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018, were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of

which was made known to Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Defendant

is without knowledge sufficient to confirm whether Plaintiff relied on those statements. Further

- 46 - 9798804v4

answering, at the time of the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared

by their mutual financial advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from

the various accounts, and each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history

from any account. Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make

slanderous and libelous allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that

he did not.

79. As a result of Dan Brown’s fraudulent misrepresentation, Blythe Brown has

suffered and continues to suffer harm.

Response:

79. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 79. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant.

COUNT IV NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

80. Plaintiff Blythe Brown re-alleges and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Response:

- 47 - 9798804v4

80. Defendant repeats and incorporates his response to each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

81. Defendant Dan Brown negligently misrepresented and omitted material facts,

information and data regarding the Browns’ marital assets and finances, and Dan Brown’s assets,

finances and projects.

Response:

81. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 81. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not. This

decision on Plaintiff’s part not to request back-up spending information constituted a superseding

intervening cause for any negligent conduct of Defendant’s, thereby barring any claim of liability

against Defendant.

82. Dan Brown failed to exercise reasonable care to verify the truth of his statements

and omissions to Blythe Brown.

Response:

82. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 82. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

- 48 - 9798804v4

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not. This

decision on Plaintiff’s part not to request back-up spending information constituted a superseding

intervening cause for any negligent conduct of Defendant’s, thereby barring any claim of liability

against Defendant.

83. Blythe Brown justifiably and reasonably relied on Dan Brown’s representations.

Response:

83. Defendant says that Plaintiff’s divorce attorney did extensive due diligence and

that, from all appearances, Plaintiff was relying on her in this process rather than on his

representations, which were accurate and complete and involved no omissions. But, Defendant

cannot admit or deny what was in Plaintiff’s mind at the time.

84. As a result of Dan Brown’s negligent misrepresentation, Blythe Brown has suffered

and continues to suffer harm.

Response:

84. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 84. Further answering, Defendant

affirms that the statements in his financial affidavit, executed as was Plaintiff’s as of July 8, 2018,

were accurate and complete and that there were no omissions, all of which was made known to

Plaintiff and her attorney before the filing of this Complaint. Further answering, at the time of the

allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

- 49 - 9798804v4

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not. This

decision on Plaintiff’s part not to request further information constituted a superseding intervening

cause for any negligent conduct of Defendant’s, thereby barring any recovery of damages.

COUNT V CONVERSION

85. Plaintiff Blythe Brown re-alleges and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Response:

85. Defendant repeats and incorporates his response to each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Answer as though fully set forth herein.

86. The Browns’ marital assets were subject to equitable division under New

Hampshire law. Plaintiff Blythe Brown and Defendant Dan Brown each had a beneficial interest

in their financial assets, properties and bank accounts, whether joint or otherwise.

Response:

86. Defendant agrees that the Browns’ assets were subject to equitable division under

New Hampshire law in connection with their divorce, but not during the marriage. Further

answering, Defendant says that such assets were divided , with Plaintiff receiving assets

with an estimated value of more than $ constituting of the total value, plus an

additional $ in lieu of future alimony. The second sentence of paragraph 86 states a

conclusion of law as to which no response is required. However, Defendant notes that Plaintiff’s

conclusion of law is erroneous: Plaintiff did not during the course of the marriage have a 50%

- 50 - 9798804v4

interest as of right in the assets that were derived from compensation paid to Defendant for his

creative works, and he was legally entitled to maintain a personal account from that compensation.

Further answering, Defendant’s account constituted well less than 1% of the total assets derived

from his earnings while Plaintiff disbursed millions of dollars from the joint account and from the

Runnymede account to which she had sole access. From this personal account and the couple’s

joint account, Plaintiff spent more than $10,000,000 to fund her horses, equine projects, and horse

companions. Further answering, at the time of the allocation of the assets, each party received a

spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding

several months from the various accounts, and each party had the opportunity to request the earlier

expenditure history from any account. Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing

instead to make slanderous and libelous allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself

when she knew that he did not.

87. Dan Brown substantially interfered with and diminished the parties’ marital assets,

including the Browns’ various bank accounts, by secretly using monies and marital assets and by

withdrawing and transferring sums of money from the accounts to use for himself and/or for the

benefit of one or more third parties over a period of several years.

Response:

87. Defendant denies the allegations of paragraph 87. During the course of the

marriage, Plaintiff did not have a 50% entitlement as of right in the assets that were derived from

compensation paid to Defendant for his creative works, and he was legally entitled to maintain a

personal account from that compensation. This is particularly true where that account constituted

well less than 1% of the total assets derived from his compensation, while Plaintiff expended

millions of dollars from the joint account and from the Runnymede account to which she had sole

access. From this personal account and the couple’s joint account, Plaintiff spent more than

- 51 - 9798804v4

$10,000,000 to fund her horses, equine projects, and companions. Further answering, at the time

of the allocation of the assets, each party received a spreadsheet prepared by their mutual financial

advisor reflecting expenditures over the preceding several months from the various accounts, and

each party had the opportunity to request the earlier expenditure history from any account.

Plaintiff apparently did not to do so, then or later, choosing instead to make slanderous and libelous

allegations against Defendant that he perjured himself when she knew that he did not.

88. Dan Brown improperly converted the Browns’ marital assets and finances without

the consent or knowledge of Blythe Brown.

Response:

88. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 88.

89. Dan Brown’s conduct substantially interfered with Blythe Brown’s right and ability

to control such assets and finances and, as a result, Blythe Brown is entitled to recover the

damages caused by such conversion in the full value thereof and/or to the property at issue.

Response:

89. Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 89. Plaintiff did not have a right to

control such assets and finances, and she is therefore not entitled to recover damages for

conversion.

COUNT VI INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

90. Plaintiff Blythe Brown re-alleges and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Response:

90. Defendant repeats and incorporates his responses to each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

- 52 - 9798804v4

91-93. Because this count fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is

therefore subject to a motion to dismiss, Defendant, while denying all allegations contained herein,

requests leave to defer a response, if any, until such motion has been ruled upon.

COUNT VII NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

94. Plaintiff Blythe Brown re-alleges and incorporates each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

Response:

94. Defendant repeats and incorporates his responses to each and every allegation

contained in the previous paragraphs of this Complaint as though fully set forth herein.

95-96. Because this count fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and is

therefore subject to a motion to dismiss, Defendant, while denying all allegations contained herein,

requests leave to defer a response, if any, until such motion has been ruled upon.

- 53 - 9798804v4

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

1. Plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon which relief can be granted.

2. This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Count I and over any portions of

Counts II through V that require a determination as to whether Defendant filed a false financial

affidavit with the Family Division of the 10th Circuit.

3. With regard to Counts I through V, each of which relates to disclosure of assets,

Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, inter alia, (a) New

Hampshire, as a common law rather than community property state, does not recognize that the

compensation earned and assets accumulated by one party to a marriage constitute property

belonging to both during the course of the marriage; (b) RSA 458:16-a relates to the handling of

property during a divorce; (c) otherwise stated, a spouse does not have a presumptive entitlement

during the marriage to 50% of the compensation earned and assets accumulated by the other

spouse; (d) in any event, the use by one spouse of well less than 1% of his or her compensation for

personal purposes is insubstantial and not actionable as a diminution of marital assets; and (e) the

stipulation of marital partners to an allocation of assets on a stipulated “as-of” date precludes either

party from asserting that assets as of a different date—earlier or later—should be used in

determining an equitable division of assets.

4. Plaintiff released all claims relating to Defendant’s conduct during the marriage for

substantial compensation.

5. Plaintiff transferred to Defendant and otherwise waived all claims to Defendant’s

current and future creative works and projects for substantial consideration and is barred and

estopped from asserting any claims to same now.

- 54 - 9798804v4

6. If Defendant ever owed Plaintiff anything, that obligation was satisfied in full such

that an accord and satisfaction occurred upon the allocation of all assets to which the parties

stipulated in 2018.

7. With regard to Counts VI and VII, which purport to assert emotional distress

claims, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because, inter alia, (a)

New Hampshire does not recognize a claim for either intentional or negligent infliction of

emotional distress when an ex-spouse learns after the dissolution of the marriage of conduct in

which her or his spouse purportedly engaged during the marriage; (b) New Hampshire does not

recognize a claim for either intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress when an ex-

spouse learns after the dissolution of the marriage of conduct in which her or his spouse

purportedly engaged after the marriage; (c) Defendant owed no duty of care to Plaintiff after the

dissolution of the marriage; (d) Plaintiff has not alleged the necessary elements to state a claim for

either tort; and (e) Plaintiff has released any such claim.

8. To the extent that Plaintiff’s claims sound in fraud, e.g., Counts II, III, and IV, the

pleading lacks sufficient particularity to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

9. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks any relief in equity, she is barred from same

because of her own conduct under the doctrine known as “unclean hands.”

10. Because Plaintiff stipulated to the allocation of assets, and Defendant acted in

reliance upon her stipulation, Plaintiff is estopped from seeking additional assets at this time.

11. Plaintiff is legally barred and equitably estopped from asserting any entitlements

relating to Defendant’s books and other creative works because she expressly assigned and

transferred to Defendant and waived any and all right, title and interest in and to Defendant’s

current and future books and other creative works and any compensation derived therefrom,

- 55 - 9798804v4

including without limitation the projects that she erroneously claims existed but were not disclosed

to her in October of 2018, with an as-of date of July 8, 2018, when the stipulated allocation of

assets was entered into.

12. Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the applicable statute(s) of limitations.

13. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting the claims herein by her own failure to act by

requesting earlier records of expenditures.

14. Plaintiff’s failure to request earlier records of expenditures at or after the allocation

of assets is a superseding intervening cause of any injury to Plaintiff and bars Count VI and any

other count sounding in negligence.

COUNTERCLAIMS

Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Daniel Brown (“Counterclaim Plaintiff” or “Dan

Brown”) alleges as follows:

Factual Allegations Applicable to All Counts

1. Dan Brown resides in Rye Beach in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.

2. Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant Blythe Brown (“Counterclaim Defendant” or

“Blythe Brown”) maintains her legal residence in Dover, Strafford County, New Hampshire; but,

by virtue of filing the underlying civil action to which this Counterclaim is appurtenant, has

subjected herself to the jurisdiction of this Court, and to venue in Rockingham County.

3. Counterclaim Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant were married to each other

between 1997 and 2019 and were legally resident in New Hampshire throughout the tenure of that

marriage.

4. Between 1997 and 2003, Dan Brown worked as a schoolteacher while writing

novels in any available time. Before 2003, his published novels were Digital Fortress, Angels and

- 56 - 9798804v4

Demons, and Deception Point. None of the novels, upon initial publication, enjoyed commercial

success.

5. Between 1997 and 2003, Blythe Brown worked as a dental assistant and gave Dan

Brown’s novels a “first read,” as did his parents and his brother, before they were forwarded to his

professional editor. With regard to Angels and Demons, she also assisted him with research. She

did not assist with research with regard to the other two novels, which were techno-thrillers.

6. After completing Deception Point, Dan Brown began writing his fourth novel, a

sequel to Angels and Demons carrying forward the same lead character who was to become the

central figure in his future writings, i.e., Robert Langdon. The storyline also carried forward the

theme of dark, secret religious societies, imbued with ancient symbols and intertwined with art

history.

7. While the fourth novel was in progress, Blythe Brown viewed a television

documentary relating to an historically controversial hypothesis, i.e., that Jesus Christ married

Mary Magdalene, that it was she who constituted the Holy Grail rather than a lost chalice or object,

and that the bloodline of that marriage survives to the present day in France. Intrigued by the

concept, she cajoled her husband, despite his initial reluctance, to weave the hypothesis into his

novel in progress. That novel, The Da Vinci Code, was published in 2003; and Dan Brown

dedicated it to his wife with effusive praise for her many talents and in recognition of the role that

she played in his life.

8. The Da Vinci Code was an extraordinary success. By 2004, the royalties were

pouring in at a pace that Counterclaim Plaintiff had never imagined possible. A household that

managed itself frugally on the salaries of a schoolteacher and a dental assistant was suddenly flush

with money, as The Da Vinci Code gathered a wide and profitable following; and Dan Brown’s

- 57 - 9798804v4

backlist, i.e., his first three novels, also achieved the commercial success that had eluded him on

initial publication.

9. But, the monetary success came with a heavy price tag. While, before the influx of

wealth, Dan Brown had generally felt the good fortune of his wife’s sunny, outgoing side, he had

also occasionally felt the burden of her dark, angry side. In the early years, the former dominated

the latter. But, with the success and consequent wealth of The Da Vinci Code, the balance began

to shift. As Blythe’s Brown’s lavish spending grew exponentially, her civility toward her husband,

and others, waned almost as rapidly.

10. 2004 became a notable year, not only because of the influx of wealth, but as the

beginning of the end of the Browns’ marriage, as Blythe Brown perpetrated the first in a series of

incidents that appeared to be designed to push her husband away, and that, in any event, succeeded

in doing so.

11. In 2004, Blythe Brown threw a large and expensive surprise fortieth birthday party

for her husband, inviting at least two hundred friends and those more aptly labeled acquaintances,

and including his parents, his brother, and other relatives, but intentionally and explicitly excluding

his younger sister, of whom Blythe Brown had never been fond. Despite pleas from her mother-

in-law and her father-in-law, their daughter-in-law would not budge. Nor could his parents enlist

their son’s assistance because they were sworn to secrecy by their daughter-in-law. When Dan

Brown realized at the party what his wife had done, he was distraught; and all of the joy was taken

out of the event for him. He was very close to his family, and he knew the rift between his family

and his wife would never mend. Indeed, it did not. As his father wrote to him years later, after

the divorce, the family “never recovered from that blow. . . .” Nor did the Counterclaim Plaintiff

himself.

- 58 - 9798804v4

12. As the profligate spending continued, and the tensions grew between the couple,

Blythe Brown determined that she would engage in a pastime to which she diverted ever increasing

time, personal commitment, and money: the elite and expensive world of equestrian dressage.

The effort that she expended to provide “first read” editing and research on her husband’s books

steadily and exponentially declined. Her assistance on his fifth novel, The Lost Symbol, was

markedly less than that of her apex on The Da Vinci Code. She expended even less effort on

Counterclaim Plaintiff’s sixth novel, Inferno, in connection with which she precipitated an event

that forced Dan Brown to recognize that the marriage was not likely to be salvageable. When Dan

Brown was writing Origin, her contributions were almost non-existent.

13. As Blythe Brown’s participation in her husband’s works was steadily eroding, the

couple’s interests grew more and more distant. She mocked him for his lifelong commitment to

daily exercise and fitness, calling him vain and shallow. She rebuked him for his pleas that they

engage in marriage counseling, in unpleasant terms. Although he took riding lessons for a year in

hopes that it would give them something in common, she continued to spend increasing time away

at the multiple horse farms that she purchased and leaving Defendant alone in the Caribbean villa

that was intended to be a get-away for both of them. As the number and length of her vacations

increased, the likelihood that her companions would be individuals other than her husband did as

well.

14. As the distance between the parties grew, and as friends and colleagues increasingly

mentioned several of his wife’s social media postings to him, Dan Brown could not avoid the

postings himself. Increasingly, these postings included photographs of Blythe Brown and three

male employees on her horse farms who were her frequent companions, including when she was

traveling on overnight trips, and some or all of whom were the recipients of generous gifts without

- 59 - 9798804v4

her husband’s knowledge. The postings also demonstrated conspicuous consumption, which

embarrassed her husband; but his requests that she refrain from such conduct did little good. When

Dan Brown became suspicious about the amount of time his wife spent with these individuals, and

with regard to at least one of the individuals about the money that she appeared to spend on him,

he finally confronted her with his concerns. She became enraged, denied the accusations, and

insisted the men were only friends and travel companions. The embarrassing postings on social

media, known to many of their friends, continued unabated; and she remained unwilling to

undertake marriage counseling.

15. In or about late 2012, the devolving marital situation came to a head with the

incident that caused Dan Brown to realize that the marriage was very likely beyond repair: His

wife insisted that he include a reference to Friesian horses and her Runnymede horse farm in

Inferno, against his will and the desires of his editor. He finally acquiesced simply to achieve

some peace. Then, she willfully embarrassed him with his agent, his publicist, his editor, and his

British publisher, by stridently insisting over his objection that they fly four of her Friesian horses

to perform in Florence at a book event. When they refused, she pulled her husband aside, chastised

him for failing to take her side, and pronounced that the entire team should be fired if they did not

see the value of her proposal. He did not accede this time, but he did recognize how truly unhappy

the marriage was making him.

16. Six months later, in May of 2013, Dan Brown delivered a speech to a full house at

Lincoln Center in New York City. He had perceived the invitation and the opportunity as an

extraordinary honor and devoted substantial effort preparing. Notwithstanding that the speech was

very well received, his wife’s first words to him upon its conclusion were, “it turns my stomach to

watch you on stage. I no longer recognize who you are.” He was devastated.

- 60 - 9798804v4

17. Also in the Spring of 2013, during a book tour event at Kings College in Dublin,

Ireland, Blythe Brown instigated an incident between herself and some of her husband’s fans that

deeply embarrassed him. Following the event, his publicist told him that she was no longer

welcome on book tour.

18. In December of 2014, Dan Brown took his wife to Boston to celebrate her birthday

weekend. The parties had their last conjugal relations on that occasion, capping an aspect of their

relationship that had barely existed in the preceding few years when they occupied separate

bedrooms even when living in the same house and when staying in hotels while traveling. That

evening, and indeed that entire weekend, Dan Brown recognized that his wife was indifferent to

his presence and to his overtures, and realized that his own feelings were much the same toward

her. From that day forward, the troubled marriage was one in name only. Even when traveling to

professional events together, they never stayed in the same hotel room again.

19. In 2016, at a book event for Origin in Barcelona where the novel was partially set,

Dan and Blythe Brown attended a party at which he was the guest of honor. Publishers and other

literary professionals from across Europe attended, having traveled to Barcelona to meet him.

Partway through the party, she complained to him that he was not paying enough attention to her.

When he asked that she mingle with his U.S. team, whom she knew and who invited her to join

them, in order to allow him to greet the guests, she made a dramatic exit, turning back at the door

to shoot proverbial daggers at her husband. The scene caused one of his professional colleagues

to say, “I am so tired of her stealing all of your joy.” Counterclaim Plaintiff felt the same way. In

order to ensure that his wife was all right, he returned to the hotel rather than going directly to the

after-party, which he was scheduled and expected to attend. His exceedingly tardy arrival at the

- 61 - 9798804v4

latter event was awkward and embarrassing for him, and for others, who realized what had

occurred.

20. In June of 2017, Dan Brown’s beloved mother lay dying after a courageous battle

with cancer. Indicative of the fact that their marriage was truly one in name only, Blythe Brown

chose to leave her husband to face the impending death without his wife as she vacationed with

her companions in the Caribbean, posting photos on social media of their frolics and heading home

only when it was too late to say her final goodbye. Later, Defendant’s father would write when

his son divorced, “Blythe’s behavior at the time of mom’s death was unforgiveable. . . . I am

delighted you are free, and mom would be too.”

21. By 2018, neither Dan nor Blythe Brown had evidenced any interest for a number

of years in continuing in the roles of husband and wife; and they determined that they would arrive

at a formal allocation of assets. As that process was under way, Blythe Brown chose to move out

of the marital home, although Dan Brown told her that she was free to remain. The house was

large enough to accommodate both of them, even as they led their separate lives. She declined the

offer.

22. The parties worked with their joint financial advisor to arrive at an informed

understanding of the assets that had been acquired, all of which, apart from investment income,

were derived from Counterclaim Plaintiff’s books and other creative projects. Because cash

flowed through several bank accounts on a regular basis, the parties selected July 8, 2018 as the

“as-of” date for allocating the assets and agreed that they would split the assets . The joint

financial advisor provided a spreadsheet reflecting cash flow in and out of the accounts beginning

on January 1, 2018 to permit any necessary “truing up.” Neither party requested earlier account

- 62 - 9798804v4

information, and both were satisfied to determine their allocation with July 8, 2018 as the “as-of’

date.

23. Dan Brown allowed his wife to select first with regard to real estate; and she

selected the three horse farms, a different residence in New Hampshire, and the couple’s villa in

the Caribbean. She elected not to retain the marital home, for the stated reason of costly upkeep.

Counterclaim Plaintiff, who had no desire to own the horse farms, retained the marital home and

honored his wife’s wishes with regard to the second New Hampshire residence and the Caribbean

villa. The parties divided the monetary assets . At the conclusion of the allocation, each

party received assets estimated to be worth just over .

24. In October of the following year, 2019, the parties’ allocation of assets was

memorialized in financial affidavits for use in their divorce proceedings in the following manner:

The parties’ joint financial advisor provided both parties’ attorneys with a spreadsheet reflecting

the bank accounts—including the joint account and the personal account from which Counterclaim

Plaintiff had expended the funds of which Counterclaim Defendant now complains—for both

parties and the expenditures from each such account for approximately the first seven months of

2018. Plaintiff’s attorney prepared the first draft of the asset statement based on the information

from the joint financial advisor, and Defendant’s then prepared the same asset statement for

inclusion in Defendant’s financial affidavit. This information, plugged into the Asset Descriptions

in the financial affidavit forms, remained as-of July 8, 2018 by agreement of the parties. Contained

within the financial affidavits of both parties were their several accounts, including specifically

one account to which only Dan Brown had access and from which he had made certain personal

expenditures now challenged by his ex-wife. In addition, included in the financial affidavits was

the Runnymede Farm account to which only Blythe Brown had access and from which she made

- 63 - 9798804v4

personal expenditures far in excess of those made by her husband, excluding expenditures for gifts

to, and travel with, companions other than Dan Brown.

25. By agreement, the parties jointly filed for divorce on October 18, 2019 on the

ground that “irreconcilable differences have developed that have caused the irremediable

breakdown of the marriage.” The parties filed a Permanent Stipulation for Final Decree of Divorce

(the “Stipulation”) that carried forward the asset allocation as of July 8, 2018. In addition, Dan

Brown paid Blythe Brown “in lieu of alimony and as a further property settlement” a supplemental

$ , causing her to receive in total approximately $ .

26. Among other things, the Stipulation also provided that Blythe Brown assigned and

transferred to Dan Brown any right, title, and interest that she held “in and to all intellectual

property, intellectual property rights, fees, revenues, revenue streams, royalties, funds, income,

accounts, accounts payable, and other assets” of Dan Brown, including current and future books

and all rights relating to his creative works.

27. Also among other things, the Stipulation included a Mutual Release, providing that,

“[o]ther than as set forth in this decree or other order of this court, each party releases and agrees

to defend, indemnify and hold the other harmless from any and all claims of any nature whatsoever

arising out of the marriage.”

28. The Final Decree of Divorce was entered by the Family Division of the 10th Circuit

in December of 2019.

29. In accordance with that Decree and the Stipulation, Dan Brown took such steps as

were necessary to transfer to Blythe Brown all assets to which she was entitled under the Decree

and Stipulation, including real estate and cash or cash equivalents.

- 64 - 9798804v4

30. In contravention of the Decree and the Stipulation, Blythe Brown has failed and

refused despite repeated requests and demands to take such steps as are necessary to transfer to

Dan Brown all assets to which he is entitled under the Decree and Stipulation, including the marital

home, the sole residential property that remains after the transfers to her, and which is his only

home. In contrast, Blythe Brown owns, and apparently from time to time resides in, three horse

farms, a different home in New Hampshire, and a villa in the Caribbean.

31. In January of 2020, Blythe Brown allegedly learned that Dan Brown had purchased

the horse Limited Edition for JP and, allegedly, that he was engaged in a romantic relationship

with JP. Blythe Brown then called Dan Brown and threatened to "publicly shame him” and

“destroy his legacy," later specifically noting in an email that he was working on a children’s

project (Wild Symphony) and strongly implying that her next steps could interfere with that project,

as well as with his wholesome image. To prevent that, she indicated in the January call, he would

have to find a way to give her Limited Edition, whom she knew to be, and whom she identified in

an email as, “[JP]’s horse.” Dan Brown was stunned. His ex-wife already owned 10 world class

horses (one at a higher level than Limited Edition), all purchased from his earnings. JP owned

only one horse, her beloved Limited Edition whom she had trained and ridden for more than seven

years. Limited Edition was her lifeblood and the cornerstone of her promising career; and he

determined that he would not ask her to relinquish that which was rightfully hers and that meant

so much to her. Instead, Defendant twice urged the Plaintiff to mediate with him and find a

reasonable compromise. His efforts were resoundingly rebuffed.

32. Blythe Brown knew that she had never owned Limited Edition, and, on information

and belief, that JP owned twenty-five percent of the horse before Dan Brown purchased the

remainder interest and gifted it to JP. Blythe Brown informed her ex-husband in writing that she

- 65 - 9798804v4

was demanding that he obtain Limited Edition from the rightful owner JP, in order to inflict pain

on the woman whom her ex-husband loved, at the same time that she sought enormous monetary

concessions from him. Notwithstanding such knowledge, Counterclaim Defendant nonetheless

retained Dutch counsel to commence an action in the Netherlands against JP, almost

simultaneously with this New Hampshire lawsuit, and to attempt (albeit unsuccessfully) to seize

possession of Limited Edition.

33. By the time that the Counterclaim Parties stipulated to an allocation of their assets

with an as-of date of July 8, 2018, each side had received a spreadsheet from the parties’ joint

financial advisor reflecting the bank accounts—including the joint account and the personal

account from which Counterclaim Plaintiff had expended the funds of which Counterclaim

Defendant now complains—for both parties and the expenditures from each such account for

approximately the first seven months of 2018. Each party was free to request the same information

looking back historically in the marriage, which would have demonstrated: (a) that Blythe’s

Brown’s expenditures exceeded Dan Brown’s expenditures by a factor of at least ten times; (b) the

wire transfers of which Blythe Brown now complains; and (c) the source of all non-investment

profit funds in all accounts, i.e., Dan Brown’s earnings. Blythe Brown made no such request,

which would likely have precipitated a comparable request by Dan Brown regarding her

exponentially larger expenditures.

34. During the first several months in 2020, when Blythe Brown was demanding

concessions from her ex-husband if he wished to preserve his reputation, she accused him of

making expenditures relating to JP, and other women, from a secret account that he supposedly

had hidden at the time of the allocation of assets, such that he had committed perjury in violation

of New Hampshire law. When she was provided with information confirming that the personal

- 66 - 9798804v4

account to which she made reference was actually listed in his financial affidavit, as well as her

own, when the assets were allocated, such that the affidavit was complete and accurate, she

modified her perjury allegation to allege that he had not disclosed projects that were under way at

the time he signed his financial affidavit.

35. When asked to what she referred, she referenced four purported projects. The first,

Wild Symphony, was well known to Blythe Brown as a project years in the making to educate

school children about classical music, funded by Dan Brown from his own pocket. It has generated

no profit, and likely never will, given the sizeable expenditure for the symphony orchestra that

performed his works. The second project, MasterClass, also known to Blythe Brown before the

allocation of assets—indeed, she knew that the advance production crew was visiting the marital

home the day after she physically moved out—is an on-line adult class for aspiring writers that

Counterclaim Plaintiff undertook as a favor to a friend, with no income generated as of the time

of the financial affidavit, and very little thereafter. The third, a television series in which Dan

Brown’s protagonist Robert Langdon would be the lead character, was a concept that had bounced

around, with Blythe Brown’s knowledge, on a number of occasions, but no contract—not even an

option agreement—was signed until months after the financial affidavit; and, as Blythe Brown

well knew, the concept of a Robert Langdon television series had been raised at least twice

previously and never come to fruition. The fourth, the novel that Dan Brown is now writing, was

not under way at the time of the financial affidavit. All of this was explained to Blythe Brown

through her counsel before she filed her Complaint; yet, she proceeded as if she were not in

possession of knowledge that her ex-husband’s representations in his financial affidavit were true.

36. Blythe Brown did not limit herself to accusing Dan Brown of lying in his financial

affidavit in a judicial filing. She told mutual friends of the Browns—and, on information and

- 67 - 9798804v4

belief, others—that her ex-husband’s divorce filings were false, that he had hidden assets in the

course of those proceedings, and that he had surreptitiously depleted marital funds that belonged

to her.

37. Blythe Brown’s allegations of perjury, hidden assets, and depletion of marital funds

were false and were intended to inflict reputational harm and personal pain on her ex-husband for

her own financial gain by extracting additional monetary compensation from him to which she is

not entitled.

38. Blythe Brown, in her communications with mutual friends—and, on information

and belief, others—and in her social postings, intentionally omitted reference to the true

dysfunctional state of the marriage and to the circumstances surrounding Dan Brown’s ultimate

relationship with JP, in order to paint herself as the innocent victim and to portray her ex-husband

in a false light, ultimately for her own financial gain by extracting additional monetary

compensation from him to which she is not entitled.

COUNT I: LIBEL PER SE AND SLANDER PER SE

39. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 as if set

forth here in their entirety.

40. Blythe Brown’s non-judicial statements that Dan Brown perjured himself or lied

in the divorce proceedings constitute allegations of a criminal offense pursuant to RSA 641:1.

Her statements have alleged perjury in two separate and distinct respects, i.e., (1) failure to

disclose assets in the nature of bank accounts in the divorce proceedings, and (2) failure to

disclose assets in the nature of on-going projects in the divorce proceedings. Because she

alleges that his perjury was to defraud the court, as well as his purportedly innocent spouse, the

- 68 - 9798804v4

conduct she has alleged is morally reprehensible in nature, thereby compounding the injury to

Dan Brown and his reputation.

41. Dan Brown truthfully disclosed his assets, both with regard to bank accounts and

with regard to on-going projects, in his financial affidavit. Blythe Brown’s non-judicial

statements to the contrary are false.

42. Commencing before she filed her Complaint, Blythe Brown asserted the non-

judicial allegations of criminal conduct with actual knowledge that the allegations were false. To

the extent that these false allegations were published orally, e.g., in conversations with her

friends and the Browns’ mutual friends, and, on information and belief, others, the allegations

constitute slander per se. To the extent that these false allegations were published in writing,

e.g., in email communications with her friends and the Browns’ mutual friends, and, on

information and belief, others, the allegations constitute libel per se. In addition, her carefully

orchestrated social media postings portraying herself as the victim striking back at her ex-

husband’s lies at or about the same time that she or her agents were providing a copy of, or

steering the press to, her Complaint alleging perjury, and giving interviews decrying Dan

Brown’s purported “dishonesty,” constituted both libel per se and slander per se. The protection

that her false allegations of criminal conduct enjoyed in the judicial filing does not extend to the

republication of her false statements outside the courtroom. Plaintiff knew her statements to be

false. Or, at very least, given that she had the ability to confirm independently through the

parties’ joint financial advisor all expenditures from all of the declared accounts in advance of

the allocation of assets, and/or in advance of asserting the allegations of criminal conduct, her

conduct was undertaken with reckless disregard for the truth.

- 69 - 9798804v4

43. Blythe Brown’s false non-judicial assertions of criminal conduct, because they

were intentionally false or made with reckless disregard for the truth, were asserted against her

ex-husband with actual malice, and for her own financial gain.

44. As noted above, Blythe Brown’s false non-judicial assertions of criminal conduct

constitute libel per se when made in writing, including emails, and slander per se when made

orally. Both entitle Counterclaim Plaintiff to reasonable damages without regard to whether he

has sustained special damages. However, Counterclaim Plaintiff alleges that he has in fact

suffered special damages as a result of Counterclaim Defendant’s conduct.

45. Given that Blythe Brown had the ability at any time to confirm independently

through the parties’ joint financial advisor all expenditures from all of the declared accounts, and

that she knew that her ex-husband did not lie on his financial affidavit about the existence, or

non-existence, of any material revenue-generating projects, Blythe Brown’s non-judicial

assertions that Dan Brown lied in the divorce proceedings, i.e., that he perjured himself,

constituted wanton, oppressive, or malicious conduct entitling Counterclaim Plaintiff to

enhanced compensatory damages.

COUNT II: INVASION OF PRIVACY/PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE FACTS

46. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 45 as if set

forth here in their entirety.

47. Commencing in 2004, and escalating thereafter, Blythe Brown engaged in a

course of conduct that alienated her then-husband’s family, his professional publishing

colleagues, his fans, and ultimately Dan Brown himself, as alleged above. As the years passed,

she spent increasing amounts of time away from her husband and carried on her new life in the

equestrian dressage world, in separate locales and with new companions, spending copious

- 70 - 9798804v4

amounts of his earnings throughout. By the end of 2014, the marriage had become one in name

only, and the parties lived increasingly separate lives. Such residual love as existed was more

maternal/paternal than marital, and the concept of a marital bedroom had long since ceased, as

had all common interests. Public events together were largely a matter of keeping up

appearances or of obligation. While some level of comfort had for years existed with long-term

companionship, regrettably, that comfort over time became hollow, and transitioned from

resignation to unhappiness. Each party moved to fill the void in her or his life, and each found

solace in her or his own way. And, as Dan Brown withdrew more into his work, Blythe Brown

became more contemptuous of him.

48. Against this backdrop, Dan Brown’s relationship with JP developed, not in the

marital home or even the marital state, and not at the time or under the circumstances that Blythe

Brown has asserted, both judicially in this lawsuit, and non-judicially in her comments to and

communications with her friends and the Browns’ joint friends, and, on information and belief,

to others. This relationship, which has given him back some joy in his personal life, is not of

legitimate concern to the public.

49. Dan Brown and JP have conducted their relationship in the United States with

extreme privacy, and in the Netherlands with discretion and as much privacy as circumstances

have permitted. Before Blythe Brown’s judicial and non-judicial assertions, in both the United

States and the Netherlands, the relationship was not known to the public generally in either

country and was not the subject of Internet postings. The general public did not know about the

relationship and had no reason to know.

50. Blythe Brown’s assertions regarding this relationship, both judicially and non-

judicially, were made with the goals and intent of making a private relationship as public as

- 71 - 9798804v4

possible, and casting the relationship in unflattering and unfair terms that would be highly

offensive to a reasonable person who is not aware of the true context.

51. Dan Brown’s relationship with JP is not legally relevant to any viable claim in

this lawsuit. Nor are such allegations related to Dan Brown’s profession as a writer, which has

conferred public figure status on him.

52. Blythe Brown’s conduct therefore constitutes an intentional invasion of Dan

Brown’s privacy, which has caused damage to him.

53. Blythe Brown’s judicial and non-judicial assertions regarding Dan Brown’s

private relationship with JP constituted wanton, oppressive, or malicious conduct entitling

Counterclaim Plaintiff, not only to his actual damages, but to enhanced compensatory damages.

COUNT III: INVASION OF PRIVACY/FALSE LIGHT

54. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 53 as if set

forth here in their entirety.

55. Blythe Brown, both judicially in this action and non-judicially in conversations

with, and communications to, her friends and the Brown’ mutual friends—and, on information

and belief, others—has portrayed herself as the loving wife and innocent victim of a deceitful

husband, i.e., the Counterclaim Plaintiff, who purportedly stole her share of alleged “marital

assets” to lavish gifts and money upon JP.

56. Blythe Brown’s judicial and non-judicial allegations concerning the status of the

Browns’ marriage, her role in its failure, Dan Brown’s purported role in destroying that marriage

through his relationship with JP, and his purported diversion of her share of alleged “marital

assets” are false, both expressly and by omission.

- 72 - 9798804v4

57. Blythe Brown, through her false judicial and non-judicial allegations, has given

publicity to these matters pertaining to the marriage and the assets in a manner that places Dan

Brown in a false light that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person.

58. Blythe Brown knew, or acted with reckless disregard, of the falsity of the matters

that she has chosen to publicize, judicially and non-judicially, and the false light in which she has

thereby placed Dan Brown. Dan Brown has been damaged by this conduct.

59. Blythe Brown’s judicial and non-judicial assertions regarding the matters alleged

above constituted wanton, oppressive, or malicious conduct entitling Counterclaim Plaintiff, not

only to his actual damages, but also to enhanced compensatory damages.

IV. BREACH OF CONTRACT

60. Counterclaim Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 59 as if set

forth here in their entirety.

61. In 2018, more than a year before the parties filed for divorce, they determined that

they would enter into a final allocation of all of the assets, at or about the time that Blythe Brown

physically moved out of the marital home.

62. Over a period of several months, but applying the stipulated “as-of” date of July

8, 2019, the parties, with the assistance of their joint financial advisor, agreed on the exact

division of all of the assets that existed on that date. That stipulated allocation constituted a

binding contract (the “Allocation Contract”) between them that was subsequently by agreement

incorporated in to the Stipulated Final Decree of Divorce.

63. The Allocation Contract contemplated that each party would effectuate such

documents and take such steps as were reasonably necessary to transfer his or her interest in joint

property to the other party if the other party was to be the owner of such asset after the

- 73 - 9798804v4

allocation. In accordance with that requirement, Dan Brown transferred his interest in three

horse farms, a second house in New Hampshire, and a villa in the Caribbean to Blythe Brown.

Blythe Brown’s obligation was to transfer her interest in the jointly owned marital home to Dan

Brown.

64. Blythe Brown, with no excuse for nonperformance, has failed and refused to

transfer her interest in the marital home to Dan Brown, despite repeated requests and demands.

65. Blythe Brown is in breach of the Allocation Contract by virtue of her failure and

refusal to transfer her interest in the jointly held marital home to Dan Brown, as a result of which

she is now the sole owner of two horse farms (having sold the third), another house in New

Hampshire, and a villa in the Caribbean, and she is the joint record owner of the marital home.

66. Dan Brown’s home is unique and special to him, and cannot be replaced merely

with monetary damages. Rather, he can only be made whole if Counterclaim Defendant is

required, via affirmative injunctive relief, to execute the necessary transfer documents.

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF

Wherefore, Counterclaim Plaintiff Dan Brown prays for the following relief:

1. that he be awarded reasonable damages, without regard for actual damages, on his

claims for libel per se and slander per se (Count I);

2. that he be awarded his actual compensatory damages and enhanced compensatory

damages for Counterclaim Defendant’s libel per se and slander per se (Count I);

3. that he be awarded his actual compensatory damages and enhanced compensatory

damages for invasion of privacy/public disclosure of private facts (Count II);

4. that he be awarded his actual compensatory damages and enhanced compensatory

damages for invasion of privacy/false light (Count III);

- 74 - 9798804v4

5. that an order in the form of an affirmative injunction enter requiring Counterclaim

Defendant Blythe Brown to transfer her joint ownership of the marital home to Dan Brown, free

and clear of all encumbrances caused or imposed by Counterclaim Defendant;

6. for interest to the full extent permitted by law;

7. for costs and fees to the full extent permitted by law; and

8. for such other and further relief as this Court deems just and appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

DANIEL G. BROWN By his attorney

/s/ Joan A. Lukey Joan A. Lukey, Bar No. 16246 CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP 2 International Place Boston, MA 02110 (617) 248-5000 joan.lukey@choate.com

- 75 - 9798804v4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Joan A. Lukey, state that on this date I am sending a copy of this document as required by the rules of the court. I am electronically sending this document through the court’s electronic filing system to all attorneys and to all other parties who have entered electronic service contacts (email addresses) in this case. I am mailing or hand-delivering copies to all other interested parties.

Harvey J. Wolkoff Aliki Sofis Kathleen Marini QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 111 Huntington Avenue, Suite 520 Boston, MA 02199 (617) 712-7100 harveywolkoff@quinnemanuel.com alikisofis@quinnemanuel.com kathleenmarini@quinnemanuel.com Joseph D. Steinfeld 130 Court Street Keene, NH 03431 (617) 285-3937 joe@joesteinfield.com

/s/ Joan A. Lukey Joan A. Lukey, Bar No. 16246 CHOATE HALL & STEWART LLP 2 International Place Boston, MA 02110 (617) 248-5000 joan.lukey@choate.com