[F-ck Marriage News] Swiss Court Awards Wife $4.5 billion Settlement

Newsflash, you split debts in divorce as well.

Go get married, buy a house you can't afford and then file for divorce and see what happens.

Life is a really long trip and if you decide to get hitched you are saying we will share the profits and the losses of our journey until we stop traveling together. You both know that going in. If you aren't cool with that, then stay a bachelor.

By the way, there aren't many people who sign a prenup when they get married BEFORE EITHER HAS ANY MONEY that would preclude the wife from getting money if the husband ever makes it. Also, what is the reference to her declining a prenup after they were married? That sort of defeats the purpose of the word?

 

I'm blown away at all the people crying the blues for a billionaire losing half his fortune in a divorce. If he is as smart and hard working as people think he is, then he knew when he got married that it meant he was entering into a 50/50 partnership. I'm sorry that you guys can't handle that.

 

I am a guy, I don't see the issue. Not like this guy is going to struggle with the remaining $4.5 billion he has. He can still spend a million dollars a day for the next 10+years without making a single dollar more in his life and still have millions after. Boo hoo.

 

The issue is more about the modern misogyny where a lot of guys think of women as "b****es" and "gold digging whores" who are on this earth for guys to smash as many as they can.

Go through any thread that deals with women on this board and count how many times women are referred to in a derogatory manner. The biggest compliment most clutchfans are capable of attributing to a woman is that they'd be willing to have sex with her.

 

Justy, no one here is crying or calling her a "b....". It's sad how in today's internet age no one can disagree with a person's view without being called a hater or crying.

 

Crying the blues is being used in a general sense to mean "taking up his side of the argument when he doesn't need sympathy."

And the other half of what I said is addressing the general internet culture towards women which I stand behind 100%.

 

It would be different if they were married for 6 months, but they were married for decades and have a grown child together. She was obviously not a typical gold-digger.

 

I'm not saying that she was the BETTER half.

But she was HALF.

And as a result, she gets HALF.

 

I'm surprised that people think being a billionaire is hard. It's unlikely for most people, but they can only work so hard, a feat matched and often surpassed by millions of people. It's not like a billionaire is rich because he found an extra 100 hours in each day to do more than everybody else.

If she left him after a bankruptcy, she'd come out of it with no money, bad credit, and probably poor job prospects. If she has kids with him already, her chance of finding a second husband to bail her out becomes pretty remote.

 

Let the record reflect this comment from 5/11/14.

http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?p=8958684#post8958684

The language is a little abrasive, but sounds like I'm willing to grow old with a woman. And she wouldn't just be my f*** toy. Didn't call her b or h either.

 

Agreed. You have the right idea, sir.

 

He's the fertilizer king, I'm sure they lived like ***** at some point

 

Nonsense. There are all sorts of ways to becoming a millionaire, and not all involve hard work. Winning the lottery. Lucking into a low level job at Facebook early on. etc. No one here has any clue how much work either of them did - maybe their whole business was based on her ideas? Or her pushing him to ditch his job and pursue the business?

But regardless, who the hell thinks of marriage as a "who did what" arrangement and "lets split everything based on the share of work we did" concept? Why is how much work each did even relevant? When you get married, you share assets. Period. You don't treat paychecks as your own personal money (at least, most people don't) - it's the family's money. So why would that change in a divorce?

 

Because men are butthurt that one of the hoes is getting that cash.

 

Jeez, ok

1. So are we saying because she filed for divorce we know for a fact that the former Mrs. Rybolovlev didn't feel hurt doing so in some way either? Do we know that for a fact just because she filed for divorce? Perhaps he made the marriage untenable(intentionally or unintentionally) over the last few years hence her finally deciding to file. What we do know is he was not a model husband. She had grounds to file for divorce for a while apparently and eventually she got fed up and did so. She didn't just file on the grounds of "irreconcilable differences" or no fault. She felt she had a good reason to file and it's kinda tough to argue w/her basis for filing for divorce.

2. The prenup. She declined a prenup before they got married. Before he made his fortune. So that's proof she's the opposite of innocent??? Seriously, you think the majority of regular everyday working folk decide to get married and sign prenups before they do so? A lot of young couples get married and don't see a reason to sign a prenup. They believe in their partners but how many of them actually believe their partners will become billionaires? I'm pretty sure not a lot. You think if he met her as he was amassing his fortune in the 90s that he wouldn't have made her sign the prenup and she wouldn't have had a choice but to do so if she wanted to be with him? Unfortunately for him they got married before the money was made and there was no impetus for him to convince her to sign a prenup. Doesn't make her scheming in any way at all.

3. Perhaps one can go w/out saying one is tougher than the other. They are both tough in their own ways, being a housewife and becoming a billionaire. No need to disregard the difficulty of either. (I will say in his case though, compared to some American billionaires, he battled for his fortune. He endured a lot for his fortune but she was right there with him and for him by most accounts).

1. How do her actions not indicate anything about going through thick and thin? Do we/you know about tough times they've had? So we're saying because she filed for divorce that means her actions don't indicate she would stick with him(even though she already did based on their history)? But you also have no basis for implying her actions do not indicate she would stick w/him through thick and thin and if they ended up on welfare and food stamps? Stop automatically making him the good half of the marriage just because she is female and he is rich. HIS ACTIONS GAVE HER REASON TO FILE FOR DIVORCE.

Some points for you and HouStunna to understand before you all continue.

1. He wasn't and is not a saint. When you cheat on your spouse repeatedly and they eventually get tired of it and file for divorce, it's kind of tough to feel sorry for the cheater. Maybe that's just me.

2. They lived in Switzerland. They knew the divorce laws. This wasn't some shock to him that the ruling might be for both parties to get half of the fortune. If he didn't want a chance of that then he should've been smarter and made their domicile a place like Sweden or he should have filed for divorce first (knowing he'd made the situation untenable for her w/his infidelities) and chosen a forum/jurisdiction before she did. They were in Swtizerland and she chose Switzerland. Would have sucked for him in England as well. We can all agree on this- The divorce laws in many countries need to be changed and Europe has a few that aren't very nice-England, Switzerland.

You're in Germany, you and ATW probably know the divorce law model better than I do. If you're a billionaire and you got married w/o a prenup, and youre cheating on your wife fairly frequently, common sense would indicate you might want to do a better job at (a) hiding your assets-he apparently tried w/ various trusts and off-shore accounts but apparently he and his lawyers needed to do a better job (b) pre-empting her filing for divorce first (c) choosing a country with more favourable divorce laws for males as a place for the wife to live-even though she could still file in another city he has a home I'm guessing. --- All that is if yanno, the guy decided to not stop cheating and give his wife a reason to file for divorce.

2. So concluding- He met and married her before he built his wealth up. He cheated frequently with others, while married to her. She got fed up eventually and filed for divorce. Tough Swiss courts granted her half his fortune. Tough $hit for him. Divorce her first if you want to cheat on her or have a better chance to get a favourable judgement or live w/the consequences of her filing first upon her getting tired of dealing with his infidelity. Not that complex.

 

Even if she had signed a prenup before they got married it likely wouldn't have covered future earnings or the wealth he amassed while married.

 

Life miserable how..? If physical or verbal abuse, or extramarital affairs are out of the equation...? Giving her a meager allowance for luxury expenses...?

I clearly listed the qualifications for such a scenario... which you didn't bother to refute...

If a man that works hard to earn his millions/billions isn't "entitled" to keep them.... then, certainly... a woman married to that man shouldn't just be "entitled" to half his millions/billions... for simply being legally bound to him while he earned them.... especially if - given the aforementioned parameters are met - she's the one that files for divorce...

People, it's one thing to be chivalrous ... it's another matter entirely to be naïve about the sex....

I imagine you'd be in favor of giftwrapping those billions for this woman even if you found out (aside from having nothing directly to do with earning that money) she had a nanny help raise her child, a maid clean her house, and a personal cook do all the cooking...


Seriously... The law is as archaic as your line of thinking... It needs to be adjusted in a way that better suits the modern world... There need to be more specifics included, at the very least.... Certainly more, than, "Oh, you were legally bound as a couple when he earned this money? Here's your money. Who cares who did what, and who filed for divorce. Oh, and of course since you meet the physical criterion of womanhood, here's custody of the children, as well, which of course, grants you more money. We don't have time to see who'd be the better parent on a case by case basis. All hail all mothers.... including those that dump babies in dumpsters, and kill, or try to kill their children to maintain their lifestyle."

A little hyperbole at the end there.... but, seriously, this issue requires a more broad minded approach than most of the people here are giving it...

 

You ruined my marriage thread, and to that I say F-ck you!

 

LOL, true somewhat.... "I am mad, bro". Throw in child support.

However, I'd never marry anything I considered a "hoe". The mere suggestion of it shows you can be foolish and lame.

 

*marry or have a child