Lawyer Ana Rosenfeld gave an interview on “Must See” the program of Denise Dumas and José María Listorti, where she explained that it is the financial compensation that Rocío Oliva claims, before justice, for the six years she was in a couple with Diego Maradona.
The couple lived during their courtship in different countries and ended their relationship in 2018. Each then kept in touch with the other on good terms, even though Rocío filed a lawsuit with Diego demanding a large amount of money. Advised in a first instance by Fernando Burlando, lawyer also of Claudia Villafañe.
But now sponsored by attorney Rosenfeld, she filed a lawsuit in Family Court No. 2 of San Miguel. First, it transcended that he would have asked him for “half of what Diego earned in Dubai.” Later, it became known that the claim would be around $6 million. Although Rocío herself had demented this million-dollar figure in an interview. Now in channel 9 cycle, the lawyer explained: “Never in the record that I sponsor talk about figures. There are absurd figures they say in the media. The amount is based on what Rocío did in her accompaniment, her support as a woman and everything she did from the point of view of her personal work so that Diego Armando Maradona would do many things that (Matías) Morla knows she did…”. He said: “Of course Rocío has a number in mind, but it’s not embodied in the file. So when they talk about the millions of dollars, they’re wrong.” Then on another program on the same channel he continued his download and clarified: “Rocío’s record is yes or yes in Argentina, not in Dubai. The last domicile of the coexistence with Diego Armando Maradona was in Bella Vista, Argentina”. In response to many colleagues who doubt that the claim can be made. In this context he pointed out: “There is soon a civil code to support it. My colleagues are not going to have the last word, but the chamber, the judge or the court. The new civil code endorses the rights of the conviviality, particularly code 524 which says what right a woman has and is not to bring her back to whether she had been a football player, hairdresser or other professional activity. It has to do with impoverishment that suffered as a result of the rupture and with the cause solely based on coexistence, rights have them, it is not heir”. Ended.
