If I was 55, $184m richer, and don't have heart problems, I'd find ways to celebrate my bachelorhood.... It's not like I can take all that dough with me.
I think you're missing the point. I don't think most people who are against this woman getting that money are saying she was a gold-digger. Just asking is whatever she did worth half of what he apparently built? I don't know how much involvement she had, so I don't know. She's definitely entitled to money, but half of his fortune? Damn. lol.
Of course. But to me it is. The law said she can get what she gets - I'm cool with that. All I'm asking is "does she deserve it"? I don't know - I have no idea what all she did or how she helped him earn it.
Okay rant time The arguments here supporting the lady's case is, she was around "a very long time". And "she wasn't a gold digger. And "she was there"... That gets you 184 million dollars? Or HALF down the middle?! The laws state what it considers fair and the judges and lawyers just followed the current laws of the land, fine. Based on that all women are entitled to what the rulings dictate they can receive, and a legal and just decision was made. In real life fair division of assets though... ...Say your wife is president/vice president of a major television network, and you contributed by giving her a kiss in the morning, and making a sandwich when she got in - would you feel you're ENTITLED to HALF of what she's earned, what she's busted her ass for on the daily while you sat at home and at cheetos and watched World Series of Poker on TV? Of course everyone's gonna say "HEEELL YEAH" (including me ). But you knowing what hard is like, and NOT working hard is, how can you say that's equal and fair for BOTH sides? I know we gotta feel extra sympathy for woman kind, and my heart really goes out to them cuz it can be tough..and this lady might have even been part of the business. But the percentages from the divorce splits are outdated for current times. Women CAN earn wages now, just that the law doesnt recognize that yet.
Remember....he's getting half too! You're a partnership, of sorts. If it really irks you that your spouse isn't contributing enough financially, I guess you should get out of that 'partnership' or not get married. (Or even live together -- certainly don't have kids). Oh the joy of counting your money in your old age -- thankfully no family or friends to drain the ol' balance sheet. Blissful solitude! Look....I have sympathy for guys who go through hell with custidy and support matters. I know there are some really ugly situations out there. But as to 50% of the assets acquired during marriage??? Can't see the outrage. If they only had $100K in assets it would be OK for her to get $50K, but if they have the mega millions, she should somehow get less? She's not getting his future earnings here. Just half of what they had together. (Plus did he really earn that $400M?? Hard work, or Russian mob connections???)
WHAT????? how is 50/50 outdated??? if women can earn equal wages now...then 50/50 seems right on target.
I guess they prefer that whatever you earn during the marriage, you keep. And you share expenses during the marriage. I know some friends with Limited Liability Partnerships... err, marriages,... like that.
then "they" need to never get married or have their fiancees sign a pre-nuptial agreement. i just can't believe that people don't have this as an expectation...or that they're surprised by it...especially if they live in a community property state like texas. i realize the case at hand isn't a texas case....but i'm thinking the comments in this thread are mostly from texans, i.e. people who live in a community property state.
Agree to Disagree, The women should get enough money to live in the same fashion for a while but lets not make this a charity case. Do you know how awkward it would be to get your future wife to sign a prenuptial agreement. If your wife helped build your fortune than fine, but if she was just spending your money and going to the mall than a man has got to be able to get his dolla bills back
Not at all suprised. I agree fully, the laws have been in place for a very long time and everyone pretty much SHOULD know what divorce brings (I think). There are instances where couples (really, men) don't look at it fully. Because "loooove" will carry them through and they don't want to look ahead and consider the possibility of splitting from their looooove cuz it kind of "jinxes" the bond, and in their mind there won't ever be an "after". So they don't look ahead enough, then divorce bites em in the a _ _ later. (The women don't talk about it, or really need to bring it up cuz they already kinda know what they're to get, right...
I could be wrong and please correct me if I am, but this is how I understand it to be now in some cases I know, we hate the ramblings and really hate the mathematics, anyways: Example A: Man earns & now has = $20,000 Woman has = not much Woman gets half, now has $10,000 This is the the classic case from the old days. Understandable since way back when men dominated the workforce, & it was okay for women to be primarily homemakers and not really career minded. And wages were drastically less for women in comparison to men, so the odds were way more against women. Example B: Man earns & now has = $20,000 Woman earns & now has = $8,000 Woman gets half, now has $18,000 No matter what it can be 50% taken from the man's assets and given to the woman. The man NOT receiving 50% or any % of the woman's anything. Women's far higher earning power not getting considered in it. It said this lady is an art gallery owner, so is she not making any money from it? Its not like she's going to the poorhouse, off a divorce she probably instigated. So (like in most instances, not just divorce), she gets to have yours and keep hers. All this can be said with the term "Its cheaper to keep her" Not saying woman should get nothing. Only saying it needs to be lower than 50% It would be extremely awkward. Which is kind of the point.... How many marriages would even HAPPEN, or how many LESS marriages would there be if prenuptial agreements were more the norm, honestly? All that love thats been built up would get thrown out the window... Cuz it would be so "inSULTING" to bring that up. But why really? So what is it: Love and trust between two people is proven when a man is willing to (or expected to), sign over a chuck of his earnings? Or is it if a women can overlook her security, with NO finances factored in, and it be solely about the love and commitment to each other? And, um.....what about GAY marriages now, what are they entitled to in divorce?
1. No...you're misunderstanding it. It's more of the "woe is me, i'm the victim of the legal system as a man" stuff. In Texas....all the assets earned during marriage or bought with funds earned during the marriage are community property. They're put in a theoretical big pot. Under community property law they're split 50/50. That can be altered if someone cheated or if someone's behavior was egregious. But for the most part...it's 50/50. so if the man earns $10,000...and the woman earns $8,000. ...then there's $18,000 to split up...$9K to each. 2. Again...if it's too insulting to bring up, then don't do it...or don't get married. If you can't speak honestly with the person you're about to marry about finances, my advice is don't get married. 3. Gay marriage isn't legal in any community property state that I'm aware of. When/if it does become legal, I suspect the same 50/50 community property laws would be in place for them as well. Marriage is a partnership. Absent a contract, every partnership between two persons is treated as 50/50 upon dissolution.
it's not a charity issue at all. it's a matter of knowing what you're getting in to from the beginning. she's not entitled to assets you brought in to the marriage. we're only talking about assets earned during the course of the marriage. as i said in the post, above. marriage is treated like a partnership. in partnership law in texas, if you don't have a contract and you have a partner in a business, the courts will assume you're 50/50 absent a contract suggesting otherwise.
I dunno, how often is it the woman sells companies for hundreds of millions while the man, well, doesn't? It'd be interesting to find out, though. As far as I'm concerned, the man wouldn't deserve squat if the roles were reversed in this story (assuming he didn't do much in the building of that wealth, of course).
so man and woman want to have kids. woman has super-demanding job. maybe she owns her own company. man agrees to take job with less time constraints...maybe one where he can work at home...because they both think having a parent at home is important. woman makes tons of money. man makes less something happens that causes a rift in the marriage 30 years later. maybe she's been sleeping with her co-worker. the man doesn't deserve squat? give me a break.
