Wife divorcing ex-CEO: $43 million not enough to cover $53,000 a week in living expenses

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: waggy
the idea is the parent staying home is giving up advancing in the workforce. nto to mention being out of work for years makes it harder to get back into it.

No company will take "stay at home parent" as a job listing.


its not as easy for a parent that stayed home for years to just "get off yoru ass and go to work"

So you just give up, stay home and take the money? It shouldn't be that simple. Hell, it sounds like Welfare to me.

You might not go back to be an high-level executive, but you should be able to find a job that will allow you to live a comfortable life without sucking dry a person that you want no part of -- well, except his money...

 

[Saga]

Originally posted by: Insomniator

Completely disagree, both parents working imo is a big problem these days. Kids need a parent not a nanny. The economy unfortunately is adjusted to having two incomes nowadays so I guess that whole homemaker thing is goin out the window.

This is absolutely what it boils down to.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: mugs
Alimony actually has a worthwhile purpose. Often in a marriage, the couple agrees that one person should quit their job for whatever reason.

Yeah, in 19fucking50. Not anymore.

i disagree. many family's want one parent staying home. so that parent should be screwed?

Then that parent should get a fucking job. No freebies!

In other words, you're getting paid based on past performance (staying home to raise a kid) to not do shit in the present/future.

Now I'd agree with you if the parent is still at home raising the kid 24-7... but if the kid is off at school all day, screw that. Get off your ass and go to work.

the idea is the parent staying home is giving up advancing in the workforce. nto to mention being out of work for years makes it harder to get back into it.

No company will take "stay at home parent" as a job listing.


its not as easy for a parent that stayed home for years to just "get off yoru ass and go to work"

Fair enough. So how much do you figure she lost on her income potential over the years she was married? How do you justify maintaining the lifestyle she acquired because she got married if she gets divorced?

I can see a one time lump sum to cover her lost wages assuming all possible advancements in the prior company and 1 (maybe 2) more year of wages for her to get back on her feet, but beyond that?

I can understand punitive damages due to infidelity, etc, but still, it should not be a blank cheque.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: mugs
Alimony actually has a worthwhile purpose. Often in a marriage, the couple agrees that one person should quit their job for whatever reason.

Yeah, in 19fucking50. Not anymore.

i disagree. many family's want one parent staying home. so that parent should be screwed?

Then that parent should get a fucking job. No freebies!

In other words, you're getting paid based on past performance (staying home to raise a kid) to not do shit in the present/future.

Now I'd agree with you if the parent is still at home raising the kid 24-7... but if the kid is off at school all day, screw that. Get off your ass and go to work.

the idea is the parent staying home is giving up advancing in the workforce. nto to mention being out of work for years makes it harder to get back into it.

No company will take "stay at home parent" as a job listing.


its not as easy for a parent that stayed home for years to just "get off yoru ass and go to work"

Fair enough. So how much do you figure she lost on her income potential over the years she was married? How do you justify maintaining the lifestyle she acquired because she got married if she gets divorced?

I can see a one time lump sum to cover her lost wages assuming all possible advancements in the prior company and 1 (maybe 2) more year of wages for her to get back on her feet, but beyond that?

I can understand punitive damages due to infidelity, etc, but still, it should not be a blank cheque.

the girl in the article is just fucking nuts. first off she signed a post nup agreement. she is bound by that.

second nobody needs even what she agreed to. $50k a week? fuck her thats overkill.

but a regular person. i have no trouble with alimony. usually when a person files for it they are not getting enough to live off of. just enough to get by with a job. yes they still have to go get a job but they are getting lower end jobs or going to school.

very few get so much they can live off of and its usually for a few years or until they get married again.

 

[Insomniator]

Or how about this, the guy willingly gave her 43 million. She signed it, they both agreed. Too fucking bad if you want more now. Shit happens.

why even bother having contracts if you can just cry about it and get out of them

 

[IceBergSLiM]

courts should keep the 43 million and deport her.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Insomniator
Or how about this, the guy willingly gave her 43 million. She signed it, they both agreed. Too fucking bad if you want more now. Shit happens.

why even bother having contracts if you can just cry about it and get out of them

goverment seems to think its ok to do so why nto try?


but ia gree. give her what she agreed to and its done.

 

[sdifox]

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: sdifox

Fair enough. So how much do you figure she lost on her income potential over the years she was married? How do you justify maintaining the lifestyle she acquired because she got married if she gets divorced?

I can see a one time lump sum to cover her lost wages assuming all possible advancements in the prior company and 1 (maybe 2) more year of wages for her to get back on her feet, but beyond that?

I can understand punitive damages due to infidelity, etc, but still, it should not be a blank cheque.

the girl in the article is just fucking nuts. first off she signed a post nup agreement. she is bound by that.

second nobody needs even what she agreed to. $50k a week? fuck her thats overkill.

but a regular person. i have no trouble with alimony. usually when a person files for it they are not getting enough to live off of. just enough to get by with a job. yes they still have to go get a job but they are getting lower end jobs or going to school.

very few get so much they can live off of and its usually for a few years or until they get married again.

Sadly, this is the norm, the payout amounts may not be as astronomical as this case, but dudes are being fleeced left right and cetre.

Canada is even worse than the states when it comes to this.

 

[WraithETC]

Post nups mean nothing people. I think the majority of them don't hold up for reasons that are cited in the article.

She'll probably win.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: sdifox

Originally posted by: waggy

Originally posted by: sdifox

Fair enough. So how much do you figure she lost on her income potential over the years she was married? How do you justify maintaining the lifestyle she acquired because she got married if she gets divorced?

I can see a one time lump sum to cover her lost wages assuming all possible advancements in the prior company and 1 (maybe 2) more year of wages for her to get back on her feet, but beyond that?

I can understand punitive damages due to infidelity, etc, but still, it should not be a blank cheque.

the girl in the article is just fucking nuts. first off she signed a post nup agreement. she is bound by that.

second nobody needs even what she agreed to. $50k a week? fuck her thats overkill.

but a regular person. i have no trouble with alimony. usually when a person files for it they are not getting enough to live off of. just enough to get by with a job. yes they still have to go get a job but they are getting lower end jobs or going to school.

very few get so much they can live off of and its usually for a few years or until they get married again.

Sadly, this is the norm, the payout amounts may not be as astronomical as this case, but dudes are being fleeced left right and cetre.

Canada is even worse than the states when it comes to this.

this i agree with. usually the guy lose's the house, kids, and everything in the house. then gets to pay for said house, alimony, child support. wich ends up takeing almost all his pay.

i have no trouble with alimony (for say 4 years max) and child support (until 18!). but other stuff men get hit with is insane.

i remember reading a case where a women was getting 4k a month in child support. WTF it does not take 4k to take care of a child.



edit; wich is why you have a pre-nup. set out who gets what BEFORE the marriage. that way there is no suprises

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Saga

Originally posted by: mugs
So you're saying that married couples no longer agree that one person should quit their job?

Originally posted by: waggy
i disagree. many family's want one parent staying home. so that parent should be screwed?

Nobody deserves a free ride. The traditional expectation of a stay at home parent is old fashioned and outdated in modern American society. It's exactly the mentality you two share that has so utterly fucked men in the US legal system, and I'm rather embarrassed neither of you are intelligent enough to see past the brainwashing of your upbringings to analyze the reality of the situation.

Insulting my intelligence is not necessary. The decision for one parent to stay at home often has nothing to do with "tradition;" it's more often done for financial reasons now. Note that I did not insult your intelligence for not understanding that. In this case, the husband's income was sufficient that there was no reason for the wife to continue working.

I've merely stated that there are reasons why alimony may be justified. I have not excluded the possibility that alimony is often abused. It is an imperfect system. Don't twist my words to mean things that you want them to mean. I answered a question - "WTF has she done to earn anything?"

 

[skace]

She wants to divorce him, but doesn't want to divorce his money.

 

[Finality]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLgkoD6n0CU

 

[Kelemvor]

And she'll probably get it too. Gotta love the F'd up justice system in this country. Why work for a living when you can just sue someone or find another way of taking money from the person who has worked hard for it.

 

[bignateyk]

That's so fucked up.

I don't get why women always end up ahead in these things. IMO the woman should have to pay the man to hire a cook, maid, hooker, etc... so that the man can maintain HIS style of living that HE was accustomed to while married.

Why is it always that the woman should get money to maintain HER style of living?

 

[ViviTheMage]

goooooooooooooold digger!

 

[Yreka]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
courts should keep the 43 million and deport her.

...with a catapult.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: ViviTheMage
goooooooooooooold digger!

sure she was. why else would a 34 yr old merry a 67 yr old guy? but then again he just wanted a trophy wife so its all good.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I liked this comment on the site:

He could have her killed, then spend the $43 million to get out of it. Might be cheaper in the long run...

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: mugs
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/a...009/0319091david1.html

Originally posted by: JLee
$130,000/mo in alimony? WTF has she done to earn anything?

Give her $50k and tell her to get a damn job. Or sell her property.

Alimony actually has a worthwhile purpose. Often in a marriage, the couple agrees that one person should quit their job for whatever reason. That person takes a major setback in their career, and may never get back to the point where they were previously. The marriage ends up costing that person for the rest of their life. In this case, the woman was a VP at an investment company.

While in essence I agree with what you are saying, I do not think it is applicable in this situation. Often at times this plays a part when one spouse stays home or otherwise supports the other as they go to graduate and/or professional school or otherwise jump start their career. So with that being said and looking at their ages, her at 36 and him at 67, it is logically reasonable to assume that she did not in any way support him in college, or business school, or law school or whatever it was he did to make that money - they were married in 2002. She is 36 now making her ~30 when they got married and as such she should already have had a start on her career.

Essentially what I am saying I find it highly doubtful that she put any sort of career goals of her own on the back-burner to support the soon to be ex-husband's career goals. As such I really do not think this sort of rape-you-in-the-ass type of alimony is warranted.

Furthermore at her age and the fact that she has been out of the workforce for ~6 years (assuming she quit immediately after marriage) is probably not a significant determent to her ability to acquire a new job, albeit times are tough for everybody so that should be put in perspective. Many people support alimony if the woman does not go to college, drops out, or does not enter the work force after graduation. Then this woman goes on to stay at home and raise kids for 20 years - or whatever. Obviously that situation is detrimental to the career choices of the woman and alimony should be paid. Again that type of situation, in my opinion, is not equivalent to what we are seeing in this article.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: mugs
Alimony actually has a worthwhile purpose. Often in a marriage, the couple agrees that one person should quit their job for whatever reason.

Actually not often. The whole reason inflation/cost of living is so much higher post-1950's was people thought getting the wife to work would put them in a better financial situation.

In the beginning it did...but once everyone had two incomes prices just normalized at that level people would pay.

Alimony is a problem as 1) it never ends unless the other person marrys (or cohabitats now in some cases..but it's hard to prove)...2) should be limited in payment based on time married if anything...

 

[sjwaste]

Summary: Get a prenup. A Postnup is not a substitute.

 

[Yreka]

Originally posted by: waggy

i remember reading a case where a women was getting 4k a month in child support. WTF it does not take 4k to take care of a child.

The idea is providing similar living conditions for the child. If you have one parent that makes 150K per year, and the other working minimum wage the child's living condition will likely be much more lavish with the 150k parent.


This is the logic the family court uses to rape the productive.

 

[mrSHEiK124]

Funny that you guys are having a serious conversation over this. 30 year old marrying a 61 year old.........can you say gold digger? Dumbass shoulda had her sign a pre-nup.

 

[MotF Bane]

Originally posted by: HopJokey
men should never ever get married.

Fixed.