home

Divorce-Styles of the Rich and Famous

By Jeralyn, Section Economy
Posted on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:35:52 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

You think you have economic worries? Cheer up, things could be worse. You could be getting divorced and no longer able to afford your weekly expenses of $53,000, including:

  • $700 for limousine service,
  • $4,500 for clothes,
  • $1,000 for hair and skin treatments,
  • $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and
  • $8,000 for travel

And find yourself in court arguing that a $43 million settlement just isn't enough because it would only last 16 years and even though you did agree to accept that amount in event of a divorce, you only did so because your husband preyed on your fears of ending up divorced and childless.

As a result, you could find yourself on the witness stand for days while trying to convince a judge you need $100 million in cash and stock in addition to $130,000 a month in alimony.

< The Obama Plan to Give Even More Handouts To the "Masters Of The Universe" | Saturday Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Divorce-Styles of the Rich and Famous | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Meh. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:55:33 AM EST
    Just the usual acrimonious divorce sans kids but with some pricey attorneys.  

    This probably isn't about money.  This is probably about punishing each other by taking as much as they can.  It's like filing for custody of the kids not because you really want them or really think you are the better parent - but because you know it is what will hurt the other person the most.

    I feel sad for the couple - but not for the attorneys who will get paid handsomely.

    Not really. (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:21:24 AM EST
    Fer instance, there's that whole "he's 63, she's  36 thing....

    The pair married in 2002, and lived the high life together. Douglas-David's lawyer, Bill Beslow, said David pushed the then-successful investment banker into quitting her job a year later.

    I hate to break it to anyone not up on this and disabuse their notions of true romance conquering all, but 20-something Swedish countesses are usually hired by investment banks for two reasons - to bring in their contacts and to be eye candy.  

    And they marry men old enough to be their fathers because the men are rich and they want to be well-kept.

    I'd suspect he might have pulled a Kozlowski, too.  The paper seems to imply he did:

    A source said the big-spending David, whose net worth is estimated at more than $320 million, is quite miserly when it comes to taxes and noted that the exec still technically owns the $150,000 engagement ring he bought Marie in London because he didn't want to pay a gift tax on it.

    The 36-year-old Douglas-David still possesses the ring, another source said.

    In fact, she made off with a number of gifts from David the pair of 4-carat, $255,000 earrings she was sporting in court yesterday, a $97,000 Mercedes-Benz, some lamps, a chandelier and a Christo drawing, all as the postnup dictated.

    David said he also followed the terms of the deal by helping Douglas-David settle up accounts on some real-estate transactions in her native Sweden.

    But Douglas-David's side contends that she was bullied into signing the agreement and that it should be voided because the couple reconciled for a time after their 2007 separation.

    Of course, within 2 years of the wedding, he was spending a quarter mil on private eyes to follow her around, then used a process server to gin up some makeup luvvin':

    David testified that he filed for divorce against the countess four times in three years most recently in August 2007 but in the first three cases he backed off after they reconciled.

    David served his wife with divorce papers for the first time in August 2004 at their Sagaponack, LI, beach retreat, soon after learning that she was having an affair.

    The icy cad whose company makes air-conditioners admitted he personally opened the door for the bailiff and ushered him into the home. Marie begged him not to leave her.

    "Did Mrs. David appear to be upset?" asked celebrity defense lawyer William Beslow.

    "I don't know how you would characterize it if she was upset," David replied.

    Beslow went on to point out that in a deposition, the mogul admitted that "Marie was very upset and she commenced to hug me."

    * * *

    In March 2005, Davis again slapped divorce papers on his wife after getting out of their Park Avenue bed, making her a cup of tea and telling her he loved her.

    I have neither sympathy for them nor much interest in spending any more time on them.  He spends more in a week on his yacht than I (or you, dear reader) made last year.  She spends more weekly on taking care of her horse than either I or you, fellow reader, made last week.

    You all should understand, this is about money and making money and how to make money, and never was about love - other than in its most superficial manifestations.  It's all very refined (and rather than start a quibble, I won't bother appending a name to it), but it was all about money.


    Parent

    The divorce IS about money, (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:51:41 AM EST
    but the reporting is about something else.

    Emphasis mine:

    the exec still technically owns the $150,000 engagement ring he bought Marie in London because he didn't want to pay a gift tax on it.
    The 36-year-old Douglas-David still possesses the ring, another source said.

    In fact, she made off with a number of gifts from David the pair of 4-carat, $255,000 earrings she was sporting in court yesterday, a $97,000 Mercedes-Benz, some lamps, a chandelier and a Christo drawing, all as the postnup dictated.

    The attitude of the journalist is clearly that the woman isn't entitled to anything. When someone gives me a gift, I expect it is mine. I own it, and am at liberty to keep it under all circumstances without it being lumped into a division of assets.


    Parent

    No, what this story is really about (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 03:14:15 PM EST
    is that taxes on high income people are far far far too low.

    Parent
    Wait a minute... (none / 0) (#52)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:05:39 PM EST
    my wife took all of her jewelry, and I uttered not a peep. Those were gifts.

    Hmmmm, this case is a stinky one, like 5 day old fish.

    But I still don't have a lot of sympathy for either side.

    Parent

    $1500 a week to baord and train a horse (none / 0) (#71)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:07:45 PM EST
    strikes me as one her least frivolous expenditures, and $1500 a week is only $78,000 a year.

      I don't actually have a spare $78,000 a year for a horse, but what she spends on that hobby is far closer to what I spend on mine than her other expenditures are to my analogous expenditures. Say she spends 10 times as much on her hobby. With clothes, it's more like 100 times as much and that's only because I neeed suits for work. Somehow, I manage to have adequate skin for whatever soap and water cost-- I only wish I had  enough hair to be worthy of treatment.

    Parent

    This isn't about how they spend (none / 0) (#74)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:25:14 PM EST
    money vs. what you can afford.

    Parent
    things (1.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:44:43 PM EST
    can be about whatever one chooses to see them as being about and no one person gets to decide that for everyone else. That is a good lesson for many here who seem to think that the world must always accept their terms and their perspective or otherwise the world is wrong.

      I was, of course, being somewhat flippant but my only point was that singling out the horse expenses to paint her as frivolously extravagant seems to me picking the wrong item.

    Parent

    Oh, please hush. (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 03:59:40 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    I understand (none / 0) (#85)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:06:41 PM EST
      that's not something some people like to hear when directed at them. Funny, though how so many of  those same people cheer when it's directed at someone with whom they disagree.

      When people learn that there is more to discussing issues than framing them and then insisting that's the only frame, they might actually risk learnng something new rather than reinforcing prejudices.

      Yes, heresy in blog world, I know.

    Parent

    Puhleeze, people. (none / 0) (#89)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:59:35 PM EST
    I picked the expense for the horse for two reasons:
    1.  It's more than the gross incomes of over 50% of Americans.
    2.  With travel bills of $8k a week, and the places in NYC, CT, the Hamptons and two or three places in Sweden, I'm left to wonder just when she is ever going to get to ride the horse.  Poor animal may forget who she is, she travels so much.


    Parent
    Again (none / 0) (#107)
    by Bemused on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:42:25 AM EST
      I was deliberately being somewhat flippant and just pointing out that compared to the amount she spends on clothes and hair and skin, I found the horse money rather pedestrian, relatively speaking. I also think a lot more of us middle class  types can relate to owning horses than to some of the other extravagances. I know plenty of people who own horses and send a lot of money both to purchase and care for them. A lot of them own the land needed which is a good bit cheaper here in floyover country, and those that board at commercial stables havemuch cheaper rates I'm sure, but they all still put considerable bucks into it. Many other not so rich people also have our hobbies that we spend not inconsiderable money to pursue.

      Now, would most of us hesitate to file a financial statement claiming we need to be released from a contract paying us 43 million dollars and cite the cost of our hobbies as one of the grounds we believe show we need more than that? Probably. Especially if the amount of the contract --with future earnings only equal to inflation-- was enough to provide for 100 years of caring for a horse at that cost and would still allow us to have $352,000 a year to maintain ourselves for 100 years.

    Parent

    Darn it (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    and I can't even access the Georgia Lottery page.
    ;)

    $329 Million Value (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    So, HE is saying he NEEDS more than $239M and a great deal more than $53,000 a week is probably being spent by him. Seems his greed is pretty hefty, there, too.

    She's a countess. They HAVE that much money to divide. She isn't asking him to go broke by recognizing her share as less than a third (not half) of it.

    Why is it that the woman in a divorce is always pegged as the greedy one?

    Gadget I do agree (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:19:05 AM EST

    The woman usually bears the snark, while the man usually hides his assets.

    Parent
    They do hide assets, but (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:28:05 AM EST
    they don't HAVE to - public opinion is that he should make her grovel for every dime. Then, the monthly payments are used to keep her in line.

    I predict that the money she manages to get from this guy will be well earned with all the grief he is going to deliver along with the payments.

    Parent

    Don't you ever wonder why (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    the papers don't write human interest stories on how these guys live and what they do with their money?  Remember the primaries with all the attention to the Palin clothes, but nary a peep about how much those suits cost the male candidates.(5-7K, I'll bet). I have seen shirts that cost about $1000 and how many shirts does a CEO wear per week? C'mmm. I think it is a double standard here.  Same old female bashing.  That said, I don't have much sympathy for any of these people.

    Parent
    I don't think so (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:10:22 AM EST
    Obama wears the same brand of suits I do.  I'd imagine he gets his from the higher end of the line, but I don't believe they go anywhere near that high.

    Parent
    Obama's suits (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:16 AM EST
    For his nomination speech, his suit was specially designed, but would have gone for $1500 off the rack.

    (Keeping in mind that women's clothes are generally more expensive than men's).

    Parent

    I hope to goodness (none / 0) (#44)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:37:47 AM EST
    He wears it more than once.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 03:00:54 PM EST
      I have only myself and my wife as reference, but it seems to me that men's business attire is considerably more expensive per item for similar quality (or at least similar perception). Women might spend more over time but that's largely from buying more clothes because a conservative men's business suit can be worn for years without appearing dated and womens' fashions change more frequently.

    Parent
    You may be right about the going (none / 0) (#75)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:43:04 PM EST
    rate for suits.  Unless they are completely handmade, the very good ones can be had for about $1600-2000 according to what I read on a FORBES link.  On the other hand, and I don't think this includes Obama, there are handmade Italian suits that go for 3k and up.  No doubt some of the investment bankers do wear such suits IMHO.  The divorcing husband with the "greedy" wife probably wears suits that cost more than 3K.

    Parent
    you're wrong. very wrong, or (none / 0) (#76)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:43:45 PM EST
    Remember the primaries with all the attention to the Palin clothes, but nary a peep about how much those suits cost the male candidates.(5-7K, I'll bet)

    or just serially misinformed.

    the big difference, between gov. palin's clothes, and those of all the male candidates, is that all the male candidates (to my knowledge) paid for their own clothes, gov. palin did not. the campaign paid for them, for her and her family.

    if you don't see that as a defining difference, that's your problem. clearly, it had nothing to do with gender.

    Parent

    True (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:50:09 PM EST
    But she gave them back or donated them to charity, since she wasn't a millionaire like the Obamas.

    Don't forget how much attention was paid to HRC's clothes (and her ankles and laugh, but that's for another post).  HRC, like the Obamas, is a millionaire and I'm sure her suits were expensive too.

    Parent

    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:27:50 AM EST
    Because the argument is being framed that way.  In this economy (especially, this month) to argue that you can't survive on $43 million makes you look like a shallow bee-yach.

    Parent
    Maybe, but (none / 0) (#14)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    Heather McCarthy got the same treatment.

    Parent
    It never looks good (none / 0) (#16)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    To argue that you absolutely cannot survive without millions.  It's always looked silly and that's usually why the women look like gold diggers.  Do I think some of them are not entitled to it?  No, but these women also know going in that if they want they want the good things about living the wealthy and famous lifestyle, that there will be bad things too.

    Maybe if she sold one or two of the Swedish houses, and only spent half of what she does per week on hair and cosmetics, she might be able to survive. (Hey, I'm not a model, but tomorrow I'm getting a hair cut and style, my nails done, and a pedicure, and tips included, it may cost me a $100.  Plus I won't do that kind of thing every week).

    Parent

    Not saying it isn't a huge sum of money (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:48:52 AM EST
    but, the attitude trickles all the way down to the mothers who are trying to get out of an emotionally abusive relationship.

    The ONLY reason this kind of stuff makes the news is to set the attitude, because it is no one's business how much these people are worth or how they spend their money. Plenty of middle class women and children suffer the consequences of these over-reported wealthy divorces with the woman painted as greedy for thinking she should be valued at more than a fraction of the marital assets. He is saying she is only worth about 12%, which makes him 88%. Her career in investment banking probably doesn't have a lot of positions open right now.

    I'm not saying the economy doesn't make this difficult for people to swallow, but that's a flimsy argument since this attitude that women are golddiggers and men are just protecting what is rightfully theirs has been going on for decades.

    Parent

    Something tells me (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:55:10 AM EST
    even though the market is bad for investment bankers, that she will not have a problem finding a lucrative job if she wants one - between her experience and her connections - those kinds of people will never be without a job of their choosing.

    She is also an extremely beautiful woman, and I'm sure will not be lonely for long. My guess is, she also isn't going to be dating men that live in tiny apartments in the Village and have roommates.

    Parent

    Still doesn't justify what is being (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:55:43 AM EST
    done to her, and thousands of other women across our country every day in divorce court.


    Parent
    Pfft (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Faust on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:44:03 AM EST
    Normally I wouldn't comment on this but:

    1. They've only been married for 7 years.
    2. She signed a pre nup.

    We can make this reductio ad absurdum. Lets say They got married on a Monday and divorced on a Tuesday, would she then be entitled to 1/2 of what he has?

    She is arguing before the court that she can't live on an obscene ammount of money. It's hillarious to even read about her demands.

    Does HE have an obscene ammount of money? Yes. Does HE need it all? No. Once you get that much money the whole thing becomes absurd. So yeah, he should give her half, but he "needs" to make sure he has enough money for 78 houses and his next trophy bride. I mean, he's getting up there. He's going to need cash to attract his next pre-nup victim.  


    Parent

    It's actually (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:48:12 AM EST
    a post nup.  As in, after they started having troubles they agreed to a distribution of the property, and she STILL wants to break it.

    I mean, when someone tells me that they only agreed to accept a mere $43 million because they were put under emotional duress, my credibility pretty much expires.

    Parent

    I stand corrected (none / 0) (#39)
    by Faust on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    and yes, in a sense that makes it even more ridiculous. Probably at that point she only had 2 apartments to maintain but her new expensive limo service and 3rd apartment in the alps put her over the edge and she needed a post-nup upgrade.

    Parent
    Look around your life and (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:58:18 AM EST
    see what you're willing to give up to your spouse. You wouldn't fight hard to retain your current lifestyle?

    When changing jobs, do you look for a position that pays you half of what you are currently earning? Do those annual raises upgrade your life and become comfortable really fast?

    Parent

    You're talking to the wrong guy. (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Faust on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:36:01 PM EST
    I could be comfortable with a futon and a stack of books. I admit: I am addicted to having a good internet connection and a reasonably fast computer. Outside of that, I have no extravagant tastes. So no. I don't expand my lifestyle to meet my income in any particularly aggressive fashion. Admittedly I am very strange in this way.

    I do concede the point that "expenditures expand to the money allotted" but I draw the line at volumes of money that are so large that a family of 4 could live comfortably for a year on what this woman is asking for every week.


    Parent

    What about what her husband (none / 0) (#92)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:47:50 PM EST
    is asking for? It's 5 times greater than her request.

    I agree with you about the astronomical numbers being ridiculous. But, the fact is that is how much these two people have in their marital portfolio. It needs to be divided. Why is her request for more than 12% more greedy than his demand he retain 88%?

    I'd love to see the courts give 90% of their portfolio to 10,000 unemployed families with 2 or more children. They'd still have enough to divide equally and live comfortably for the rest of their lives.


    Parent

    I don't really disagree wtih any of that. (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Faust on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 06:10:15 PM EST
    And I do think he's a greedy bastard. But if I married a greedy wealthy woman and she agreed to give me 43 million when we divorced I'd be cool with that. Honestly I don't even know that I'd do with that kind of money. I think if someone gave me a million bucks I could live off it for the rest of my life. Basically I have trouble thinking about it in terms of percentages. Once you exceed ammounts of money that even upper middle class people would find very comfortable it gets into la la land and I just muster any sympathy. Divorce can be horrible and ugly, but when it's attended by more money than 98% of Amercians will see in their entire lives...my brain turns off and I just can't give a $hi7.

    Parent
    I can't resist (none / 0) (#7)
    by kmblue on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:18:24 AM EST
    Count this!

    Okay, I'm lame.

    Parent

    I don't know (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:54:09 AM EST
    who's right and who's wrong, or about the rest of it, but I'm just wondering what percentage of her time, after eating and sleeping, would have to be used spending that amount of money?  This isn't a monthly figure, it's a weekly figure!

    $130K per month in alimony.  

    And my generous ex thinks that $1K per month in child support (three school-aged children) is a travesty.  Ha.  Well, at least he pays it.  After making me pay in other ways any time he gets the chance.  If he could somehow get out of paying it, he would, while telling the world that he's the dad of the year.  Thank goodness for laws that make him pay and systems that track all of it, so I don't have to take the heat every time he writes a check.

    (smacks head) (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:58:26 AM EST
    and replies to self:

    That's what the personal assistant is for!  

    If she had to spend that amount of money in one week with no help, she'd have no free time for herself!  

    Now I get it.

    Parent

    Sounds horridly familiar (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:06:53 AM EST
    My ex paid his every month, too, but often with deductions that he thought he deserved. His belief, and his argument to the courts, was that he shouldn't have to kick in for the kids until all my money ran out. They came close to giving him that. What the courts didn't give him was made up for in ways he found to create expenses for me. It was his safety net...I couldn't afford to take him back to court.

    I left him, and no amount of punishment was enough.

    Parent

    Mine demands checks (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    when he happens to pick up a prescription for my son, or for other things.  He will only give me vacation time if I agree to let him stay here with the kids while I'm gone, because he still lives with his brother and father, and sits on the money he received when he forced the sale of the house.

    If the demanded check doesn't get to him soon enough, he makes the kids ask for it, or he berates and screams and yells on the phone, and the whole litany of rants begins -- every one of my flaws, real and imagined, is enumerated, I'm a horrible this and a horrible that, and a piece of excrement.  Whatever he can get out before I hang up.  Nearly everyone else thinks he's a great guy because he's a master of disguise.  I really wish he'd find someone else to focus on because I really don't want to go through the police and restraining order thing again.  I have had it with courts, the judges, the municipal prosecutors who don't represent you and don't even remember you from one court date to the next, and the legal fees that I can't afford.  I have considered learning enough about the laws and filing procedures to just represent myself, and maybe when I'm more healthy I will.  But the real truth is after what I've gone through, including being ridiculed and done injustice by a municipal court judge who likes to entertain the audience at the expense of the victim (and that's only one part of the saga), I never want to set foot into a court again in my life.  With domestic situations in my town, the police are the ones who really get it, who do things right, and who treat you with respect.  They can see exactly what's going on.  But when lawyers and judges and agencies get involved... it's just not worth it, unless you enjoy post traumatic stress disorder and things like that.

    Parent

    Sorry for your experience. (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:07:07 PM EST
    It sounds terrible.

    Parent
    Thanks (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:32:00 PM EST
    I didn't intend to spill all that when I came in here.  It was terrible and because we have children, banishing him from my life isn't an option, and putting him in jail hurts my kids.  It's not always as simple as it may seem to deal with these situations, though it may look that way from the outside.  It's a series of judgment calls and balancing acts.  Most of the time, I can manage dealing with him, as long as he isn't put under too much pressure and I can brush off certain incidents.  He knows that if he lays a hand on me again he's in major league legal trouble.  But he still pushes the line sometimes.  And his unpredictable flare-ups require a lot of self-control on my part.  The good thing is that his anger is directed at me, not the kids.  Hopefully he'll get counseling again without being forced.  If not, I may have to step in there somehow and make that happen, via the agencies.

    I'm not as bitter as I might sound, except when I think about it too much, which I try not to do.

    Right now, I have been involved for several years with a man who has restored my faith in mankind :)  This sounds sappy but it's true that he's the most wonderful person I've ever known, except perhaps my dad.  We are very happy together, and he cares about and is a very good influence on my boys.  And, he has literally saved us more than once from falling through the cracks, so to speak.  Don't know how I'll ever repay him but somehow, I will.

    Parent

    I'm in the middle of an (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:36:03 PM EST
    international "child abduction/unawful retention" Hague Convention case with a country that signed, but is less-than-responsive.

    At least I get to talk to my son, and so far, she's only made statements to her family, not to my son.

    Parent

    Oh, man (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:11:31 PM EST
    that sounds pretty awful.  My best wishes go out to you.  I hope it can somehow work out amicably and for the best for everyone involved.  

    Parent
    I have a bad feeling (none / 0) (#64)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:15:39 PM EST
    that there's no way for this to end well. She already told my son that 'she can't return to the US.' Completely bogus, no charges have been filed.

    Parent
    Maybe (none / 0) (#67)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:29:04 PM EST
    try to find a third party who can talk to her.  Just a suggestion.  I'm sure you're already doing everything you think is best.

    Parent
    My honest sympathy (none / 0) (#90)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:30:08 PM EST
    Can you make a trip to visit him? Would she run or refuse to allow you visitation?

    If she isn't diminishing you to him, maybe she just wants you to prove you want to see him enough. At the end of this road sits the ugly deduction she can easily pull..."Your dad could have come to see you whenever he wanted. He made the decision not to."

    Do you write to him? Send him gifts on holidays, etc? Protect your love for him and make sure you don't give her what she may be counting on.

    All children eventually grow up and away from the control of their parents. There will come a day when he can ask you to prove you couldn't do more than you did.

    My kids are both adults and their father continues to belittle and berate them. He speaks for himself through his actions. I don't have to say a word.

    There is a horrible book out there titled "Prodigal Father". It was written by a man who purposely abandoned his children to punish the wife who left him. The guy tries to teach men how to rekindle a relationship with the children they abandoned. I only suggest it because it could provide you with some ideas on how to protect yourself from accusations of abandonment.

    Custodial parents who were on the receiving end of these guys can see how self-serving and pathetic this man's approach is.


    Parent

    Joan, I hear you -- and (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:05:00 PM EST
    hang in there.  I also found a great guy . . . although he had to wait a while for me to agree to marry him.  That day was when my youngest turned 18 -- so the ex couldn't continue to use the courts to challenge custody and anything else he could imagine.

    My kids made a great best man and bridesmaid, and they greatly appreciate their stepdad -- in no small part because he even helped them reconcile with their dad, after a difficult time of pulling away, when they realized some of the stuff that he had pulled in the difficult time of the divorce.  (They didn't hear it from me, but they end up hearing about it, anyway.)  

    Parent

    Having been there, myself, you have my (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:27:36 PM EST
    absolute empathy and a virtual hug!

    If your kids aren't teens, yet, it could get much worse before it gets better. And, him finding someone else also has the potential of bigger problems.

    Mine started writing his child support checks to the kids after he finally remarried. It took a quick letter from an attorney explaining to him that his gift to the child was not to be construed as payment of child support and he was late with his payment. His new wife, a doctor with no children, was supposed to give him justification to lower his child supporter payment...or, so he thought. And, the best part of him finding someone else was that he all of a sudden refused to speak to me on any matters concerning the children. My son would forward the horrific email exchanges they would put him through on how they knew I was spending the child support money on myself and that he should demand to see a full accounting of all expenditures.

    He continues to demand to know what I'm doing from the kids, and is in the most miserable marriage known to mankind. Karma is so great.

    Deep breaths and take care of yourself! It's really difficult to find time to nurture your own well-being when you are constantly trying to protect your kids. I did not come out the other side stronger after dedicating 15 years to putting myself a distant second from trying to keep my kids from losing their self-worth to the antics of their father.


    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:00:34 PM EST
    You have been through it too.  You can always tell the ones who have really gone through this stuff when they tell you a few things.  Thanks for your kind words.

    Here's a friendly suggestion in return.  If you can, go and get some cut flowers today, or some little pots of things to put on the window sill.  Also, maybe pick up a bag of seeds to grow a cutting garden so you can have cut flowers on the table or counter, after they grow and bloom.

    Flowers and the garden help me so much.  There's a produce place that sells flowers and plants for low prices.  Right now I've got a gerber daisy plant and a few primroses.  Today I'll go and get some more cut flowers for a few dollars.  And maybe this year, after several years of good intentions, I'll actually plant that cutting garden.

    Take care <B

    Parent

    Thanks for the idea.... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:20:59 PM EST
    if you can even imagine it, my heart started racing at the idea of having to nurture the flowers. I can't inject anything more into my world me that requires nurturing, yet. My parents are now in their 80's and ill enough they can't get around on their own, but not so much they can't continue living in their own home. I'm their driver, their shopper, their medical advocate. Still looking for moments to steal for myself.

    They will not allow strangers in their home because they know they are at high risk of being taken for all they are worth.


    Parent

    I do know the feeling (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    very much so.  I'm sorry for suggesting anything that would cause that reaction!  In any case, I hope you find some way to bring a little joy into the day.  If I could grow them for you, I would.

    Parent
    And, if I could (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:38:28 PM EST
    take on one battle with your ex- for you, I would :)

    I'll remember the flower idea for the future :)

    Parent

    Oh, you are going through (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:09:40 PM EST
    so much at once, as I did -- one parent dying days before my divorce, after years of decline, and the other continuing to decline for following years.  Amid divorce and custody battles and plunging into poverty and more, I don't know how I survived.

    But I did, and you will; just find other ways of giving yourself even a minute of your own a day.  I remember giving up flowers and magazine and so much more, so I never will forget the fuss that my sibs made of me on my birthday in one of those difficult years.  Most gave me necessities, so I was stumped by a box of very frivolous stuff I never use -- flowery bath soaps and salts and such -- from one brother who knows me better.  He said I needed to learn to be silly again.  He was right.:-)

    Parent

    I am sorry (none / 0) (#72)
    by JamesTX on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:09:05 PM EST
    about your situation, but as payer of child support I sort of understand. In my decree, I am given no credit whatsoever for anything that I pay outside the official check sent to the child support agency. That is, if I buy the prescriptions, and she eventually takes me to court, then those expenses are considered "gifts", and they don't count toward the total balance of what I have paid for support. I realize custodial parents (usually women) see the noncustodial parents as being cheap shots in this respect, but they don't understand what it is like to have every technical detail in the system stacked against you. If you don't watch the money carefully, you'll get credit for nothing you pay and you can wind up in jail for "not paying" what you actually did pay.

    Parent
    No doubt there are fathers (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:22:30 PM EST
    who are being treated unfairly, but if you are looking for credit against child support because you gave your child a gift on the side, you won't be getting my sympathy.

    When you are actually living with the children, the number of unexpected emergencies that come up are all taken out of your pocket. Child support rarely is enough to cover the actual expenses of roof, utilities, and food. Every gift you gift your child that requires batteries has ongoing costs that you don't cover (minimal example) and the custodial parent might not have been able to add to the budget.

    My ex took the kids for their driver's licenses without my agreement. The instant they became licensed, my auto insurance went up over $100 a month.

    He lived overseas, so visitation was non-existent. All the broken dishes, everyday wear and tear on the house and furnishings was mine alone.

    Aren't you proud of yourself for doing more than is expected? Proud that you can rise above the shallow divisions dictated to you by the courts and do what is right by your children?

    Parent

    Yeh. (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 03:58:54 PM EST
    You have been there, too -- my ex did the same in getting my son a driver's license and more. . . .

    It still didn't top the day that I discovered that my ex had changed the medical insurance on the kids, which he was required to have, as he had employment that included a family plan.  But the lawyer did not specify that the insurance be maintained at the same level.  The day I found out was when our daughter was diagnosed with a lifelong disabling condition that required extraordinarily costly daily medications -- which the ex then would "forget" to get when she was him, and would arrive for her time with me needing even more expensive emergency supplements.

    The means of punishment by mean exes are many, but the meanest are depriving kids of meds just to be mean to the other parent, huh?

    Parent

    Slightly OT (none / 0) (#88)
    by Fabian on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:16:13 PM EST
    When I worked at a children's hospital, I was surprised when a child with a serious chronic condition had a scanty history with us.  The parents lived separately and we only saw the patient when they were visiting the non custodial parent.  Electronic medical records could really help in those cases, so instead of seeing a tiny fraction of a patient's medical history, our doctors would know a LOT more about the patient.  

    Parent
    I don't need your (none / 0) (#99)
    by JamesTX on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:46:33 PM EST
    sympathy, and I give my kids 3 times what I pay. Your sympathy is irrelevant. The point is that the legal system is stacked against dads. And don't pull that guilt thing on me about how I should just give freely and not care or I'm a bad father. You got that from child support case workers, and I've dealt with people like you for years. You aren't in danger of going to jail if the financial records get messed up, so there is no way you could begin to comprehend. You don't know anything about me. I am an excellent father, but I have no need to prove that to you. There is something be said about women who use child support as a source of income that has nothing to do with supporting children, though. A lot of that goes on.

    Parent
    The laws are different in every state (none / 0) (#102)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:15:04 AM EST
    They are not stacked against the non-custodial parent where I am. I believe the structure of visitation is dreadful and creates a very unfriendly situation for all. Until the courts start putting the real emphasis on the obligations of both parents for their children, it will continue being a terrible battle.

    There's a dramatic difference between what you said in your first comment vs. what is in these follow-ups.

    Either way, you're to be commended for going above and beyond.

    Parent

    Yes, my tone (none / 0) (#103)
    by JamesTX on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 02:37:10 AM EST
    is different in my subsequent responses because of your use of certain stock asshat statements which you have obviously picked up from people who work the child support collection industry, such as:

    Aren't you proud of yourself for doing more than is expected? Proud that you can rise above the shallow divisions dictated to you by the courts and do what is right by your children?

    First of all, I am doing right by my children, and so is anyone who pays the court ordered sums alone. The formulas for child support are not "shallow". Experienced accountants have demonstrated that the payments derived from the formulas are essentially financial death sentences for all but the wealthiest fathers. Although the percentages look reasonable, the laws ignore many hidden costs that anyone who must support themselves has. It has been clearly demonstrated that the standard child support formulas will bankrupt most noncustodial parents within about 8 years. That is, once the unfavorable tax status and all the other unfavorable consequences of paying support are figured in, the standard percentages are essentially a working person's total disposable income for living. They can't pay it out for long without borrowing or going bankrupt.

    Once that little dishonest presupposition is removed from your statement, there is still the issue with the quip about "being proud of myself". That is condescending to fathers, and I suspect you know it is, and that's why you use it. If you use that language with your ex, it is understandable why he doesn't cooperate with you. You are insulting him. It has all the characteristic tone of someone speaking to a child. I do not need the approval or flattery of you or anyone who works the child support industry to be "proud" of myself. Damned right I'm proud of myself. Can you say the same about yourself? I know what I do for my children, and I know what it is worth, and how I feel about it does not require your input. I am not a child, and my self-esteem is not something that depends on what the people who make their living in the child support collection racket think constitutes morality or quality parenting. That is why I gave the statement right back to you, so that maybe you, or others who are inclined to side with you by default, could understand how insulting it is. You are obviously experienced at this, and you know how to anger and demean someone who is a victim of the child support system. I don't need your condescending, faux flattery. What I give my children is between me and them. I don't need a child support recipient to tell me that I am a good father. I know I am, and your opinion in that area is irrelevant and not requested. The question is, how good of a parent are you?

    You also come close to the line with stuff like this:

    ... but if you are looking for credit against child support because you gave your child a gift on the side, you won't be getting my sympathy.

    I give my children plenty of gifts. Asking for the proper documentation and the proper payments for medical expenses is not selfeshness. Since you don't have to worry about proving that you have met your obligations, I realize you don't understand (and don't care). As I stated earlier, the ordered support payment is entirely sufficient in most cases. It is designed to cover such expenses. Sometimes noncustodial parents have to be careful to not let informal payments get out of hand. They have to maintain records of what happened, or else they are wide open to be sued by people like you in the future. Most of us don't have much left after paying the monthly payment, so we don't want it to go for expenses that the custodial parent is supposed to be paying in the first place, and that we have already payed for in the monthly payment. Naturally, we would prefer to use those meager "gift" resources for things the children will appreciate and understand as a gift.

    In summary, yes, my tone changed when you started repeating the stuff that makes any child support payor furious, because it is so condescending and insulting, and so dishonest. It ignores many relevant facts that people who have no experience with the system don't understand, but which fathers paying support must deal with every day.

    Good day.

    Parent

    By the way, (none / 0) (#100)
    by JamesTX on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:53:36 PM EST
    Don't you feel good about picking up those extra expenses to provide a comfortable and clean home for the kids? If you are looking for my sympathy for the expenses of maintaining a good home for the children, you won't get it. Isn't the sense of parental pride that you get out of making those sacrifices enough for you? If not, I guess you are morally deficient.

    Parent
    Good for you for coming through (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 04:12:34 PM EST
    with what a child needs.  I think you need to talk to a lawyer, though, about a way to work out medical costs.  See my comment here on those; I just was avoiding lawyers and courts and such but ought to have done something early on to work out medical costs, as an inch can become a mile.

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#1)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:45:35 AM EST
    We all gotta sacrifice somehow. But how heartless of you Jeralyn!  This poor dear!  I mean, c'mon!  don't you spend $45,000 a month on clothing?

    How plebian!

    Maybe we should set her up (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by NJDem on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 09:56:39 AM EST
    with the guy (a judge no less!) who thinks his pants are worth 50 million dollars--they'd be perfect together :)

    Parent
    Oh, the humanity! (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:05:10 AM EST


    $18,000 a month for clothes... (none / 0) (#9)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:22:06 AM EST
    ...would make me a very popular man at the local Nordstrom's.  I can't imagine spending that much in 4 years, much less every 4 weeks.  

    The storage nightmare alone is mind-bending.  

    maybe they are single-use (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:24:59 AM EST
    suits and/or outfits? snark intended.

    even after typing that I am disgusted.

    Parent

    Disposable haute coutre? (none / 0) (#15)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:31:22 AM EST
    It wouldn't surprise me in the least.  Spending money for the sake of spending money.  Meanwhile, plenty of other people in our country have to wear just about everything they own because they can't afford to have heat.  

    That's what disgusts me.  

    Parent

    What I can't understand (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by hairspray on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:50:53 AM EST
    is how tolerant Americans are about wealth.  It is only during hard times when these excesses are exposed that the population get upset. The wealth of this country has flowed upward in such an excessive way since the 80's and no one seemed to mind; in fact new grads from business and law flocked to the financial systems and that seemed so cool.  I prefer the European system where the CEO makes no more than 25% of his lowest worker, not 650% as has been the case in the USA for some time now, without a peep.

    Parent
    Hardly (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:57:28 AM EST
    It is only during hard times when these excesses are exposed that the population get upset.

    These things are in the news when excessively wealthy people get divorced and the man decides to bitterly take his wife down by forcing her to fight for every dime. They exaggerate what they need so they get something that allows them to retain a similar lifestyle.

    Ask a divorce attorney the difference between settlement battles when the man initiates the divorce v. when the woman does.

    The topic isn't how much money CEOs make over the company employees.
     

    Parent

    This is true (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:23:01 AM EST
    We rarely hear about the divorce battles where the husband is the one trying to keep every dime he can, after they were married for decades, she put him through school, worked, raised his kids while he was rising to the top, and then he fights her for every dime.  

    The other thing you don't hear as much about is when the woman has brought all the money to the marriage, supporting the husband who has worked a token job to save face, and then he takes half of everything or more, plus he might try to take her kids from her out of spite.

    The court (and obviously the female-respecting media too) loves to mock the women.

    The situation we're hearing about is sounding pretty ridiculous, and I wonder why she continues, since they are clearly going to make a complete fool of her in the process.  It can't be worth it, can it?  Also clearly, these numbers can't be real.  They've been fabricated to meet the sums that she is aiming for.

    Still, (male, and they all seem to be male in our county) family court judges, on the whole, in my opinion, aren't friendly toward women.  Some of my opinion is influenced by personal experience.  Most men I've talked to about it feel the opposite.  They always seem to think they are being robbed.  Then again, I was the one who had been the earner, and as my lawyer told me, the one who has the money always pays.  Doesn't matter what destruction the other one caused, what abuse they dished out, or what they contributed.  So now, I don't have that problem anymore.


    Parent

    My parents (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    had a female divorce judge.  It wasn't a great divorce but she was a really good judge.

    Parent
    So did I (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:11:06 PM EST
    the judge couldn't comprehend, and said so, the foreign income rules on SS and 401Ks, so she allowed him to set aside his 30% of income contributions, and the employer match because he wasn't paying 7.5% in SS, nor did she understand the first $80,000 earned as tax exempt. So, she gave him the benefits and reduced his child support from the temporary agreement. She ignored that he had gone on a spending spree with community assets despite being ordered not to touch those funds.

    I was so glad to be away from the marriage, I didn't care, but it took a toll on the kids while their father complained to them about what he had to pay for their well-being every chance he got. He ignored the college obligations he agreed to because he knew I couldn't afford to take it back to court. Breach of contract, IMO, but you won't see it in the national news.


    Parent

    The only person I've known personally (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by esmense on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:59:45 AM EST
    who was awarded and collected alimony was a man. That was 45 years ago -- before "women's lib" and at a time when women couldn't even get credit in their own names. In all the many divorces among my middle class friends, family members and co-workers in the years since, none have involved alimony. And of those women who were awarded child support, most had difficulty in collecting -- and some never received any of the child support due at all.

    Parent
    Alimony was never considered (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by joanneleon on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:17:30 PM EST
    I don't know, for sure, of any who have gotten it either, though my neighbor's friend did, and I suspect that some others I know have gotten it based on their situations now, but I would never ask.  There are some men who are decent even during and after a divorce, and they really want their kids and the mother of their kids to have a decent quality of life.  They either sign the house over or defer the sale until the kids are out of school, and they pay more than they are ordered to pay in child support.  

    I'm lucky to have gotten away without having to pay him alimony, even though I paid for child care and cleaning help when I worked full time and he supposedly was finishing his degree, for the third time.  But by the time we got to the divorce courts he had killed his golden goose and I was dealing with about six different health issues, and the prospect of returning to my career at the level I had once been was gone.  

    Parent

    My mother got (4.75 / 4) (#56)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:22:31 PM EST
    awarded 200/month about 38 years ago. Not pegged to inflation. Still gets it, too.

    But she decided not to re-file. Decided it was better than a pointy stick in the eye, and the pain of re-hashing the divorce.

    Parent

    To repeat myself (none / 0) (#31)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:12:27 AM EST
    The reason this is in the news is because she is attempting to disavow the $43 million agreement she voluntarily signed, not because her husband is "bitterly forcing her to fight for every dime."  That's 430 million dimes she could have any time she wanted.

    Parent
    Repeat away (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:19:47 AM EST
    this is not in the news for the reason you state.

    The reason this is in the news is because she is attempting to disavow the $43 million agreement she voluntarily signed

    Read the article and the post. It's to humiliate the "poor rich bee-atch".


    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#40)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:28:39 AM EST
    So if she took the $43 million it would still be in the news?  How is that exactly?  There wouldn't be a case, there would simply be a distribution of assets pursuant to an agreement.

    When there's an agreement that says she gets $43 million and she's the only one attempting to disavow the agreement, it's hard to see how "forcing her to fight for every dime" isn't a rather silly piece of rhetoric.

    Parent

    Of course there would be a case (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:34:47 PM EST
    The existence of a pre or post-nup doesn't erase the journalistic opportunity here. The only thing that would be missing from the article would be the $43M. The headlines would be "Wife of David Seeks $100M settlement AND $53,000 a Week in Alimony".

    This isn't the first divorce to make the news because of the gigantic pot of money involved. And, plenty of those in the past had no pre-nup.


    Parent

    What I am saying (none / 0) (#66)
    by Steve M on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:22:18 PM EST
    is that if she settled for the $43 million pursuant to the agreement, there would be no reason for a headline saying that she's seeking $100 million, because she wouldn't be.

    My overall contention is that this case presents a very poor vehicle for the otherwise valid points you are making.

    Parent

    You have a pre-nup? (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 01:33:03 PM EST
    Value your wife at 12% of the marital assets?

    It's rhetorical, do not answer.

    This entire episode did not deserve national headlines. Divorce is emotionally horrible even when it is absolutely the best thing for everyone. Doesn't matter what they contracted 8 years ago, what she is trying to accomplish today, or how this all turns out to anyone but the two people in the divorce. The headlines are making her look like a greedy wench.

    I don't believe his motives in marrying her were any better than hers in marrying him. I do believe the greed in this case is fairly split at 88/12 with him being the bigger jerk. The media representing her ownership of some gifts he gave her as "she's making off with..." is horrific to anyone's self-esteem.

    Parent

    Schaudenfraude (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:05:14 AM EST
    To quote Don Henley:

    "We love dirty laundry."

    People love to watch rich people suffer.  The nastier the divorce gets, the more magazines sell, the more the public scoops it up.  I guess we like to take pleasure in the fact that while they have millions, it hasn't made them any happier (at least for now).

    Parent

    I can't help (none / 0) (#29)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:10:16 AM EST
      but suspect that she might be a bit happier about things than she portrays.

      I'm not a divorce lawyer, but in contract terms, I do question whether her raising the argument that post-nup is unenforceable might not backfire. What if the court agrees with that, but then uses that finding as the basis for ruling that it's unenforceable both ways and enters a decree awarding her less than contractual amount?

      Any NY divorce attorneys know whether that could not happen in a divorce context?

    Parent

    Didn't Ivana Trump (none / 0) (#33)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    get her pre-nup adjusted?

    Parent
    No problem baby! (none / 0) (#11)
    by SOS on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 10:26:59 AM EST
    Joe, lay off staff,bare bones style, buy the cheapest peanuts available, forget inspections, lie, cheat, steal, pay off people, whatever it takes in our peanut product division.

    Got to keep the little lady happy.

    Marry a golddigger, (none / 0) (#26)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:04:11 AM EST
     even an already wealthy one, thirty years your junior and you get what you pay for. I can't disagree though with his position that he only agreed to pay forty million and change for her and so should not be ordered to pay more because she agreed to price herself at that amount.

    Don't you wonder what his (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:13:43 AM EST
    worth was at the time she agreed to it?

    People who feel the need to sign these pre and post nuptials really should choose a percentage of earnings over the time between signing and divorce rather than assign a dollar amount. Those amounts are always inadequate when the estate comes to the point of division years later.

    I find it difficult to understand how people are allowed to agree to something less than the law states. If they live in a community property state, law entitles her to 50% of everything earned during the marriage, so why would the courts agree to a 12/88 split. He was making $27M a year at the end. The interest alone on that money would pay what she's asking in alimony.

     

    Parent

    re (none / 0) (#43)
    by Bemused on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:34:29 AM EST
      On the first point, a percentage of earnings could be a very advantageous or disadvantageous agreement depending on particular circumstances. If I have a spouse who is first generation wealth early in his career then percetage of earnings might be very nice for me. If, on the other hand, I marry an heiress with a huge amount of assets and no job, that percentage of earnings agreement might jip me royally if the few years of my marriage coincide with a period of low investment earnings.

     For the second, point why should people not be allowed to bargain in good faith for a specified settlement in the event of a marital dissolution? Outside of child support, what public interest is involved in the private affairs of individuals  that should abrogate the freedom to contract?

    Parent

    She's wants to '"buy time" (none / 0) (#37)
    by SOS on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:24:46 AM EST
    so she doesn't have to think to deeply about herself.

    Just let me have (none / 0) (#38)
    by SOS on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:26:50 AM EST
    my mink coats, shoes, accessories, and leave me alone!

    Parent
    I feel a compelling need (5.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jeffinalabama on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:33:35 AM EST
    for hair and skin treatments. Can sobeody lend me oh, $1,500?

    Better yet, just give it to me as a personal improvement grant.

    Parent

    Apply for a stimulus check (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jbindc on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 12:30:14 PM EST
    You're supporting your local economy and providing jobs for the barber/stylist, and cosmetologist.

    Hey - maybe that's the argument this woman should be making!  She's a job creator / saver!

    Parent

    Paiging Kanye West...... (none / 0) (#46)
    by kdog on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 11:50:39 AM EST
    Mr. Kanye West

    Not to say her old man doesn't have it comin'...you reap what you sow, you get what you give.  They were obviously meant for each other...surprised it didn't work out:)

    Reminds me to tell my ladyfriend she's the sh*t for messin' with a relatively broke cracker!

    i'm sure all of you were (none / 0) (#79)
    by cpinva on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    married to the world's most horrible people, people i assume you married willingly, and who all duped you into believing they were the world's most wonderful people, until they weren't. you have my deepest sympathies. oh, and the child support should be paid, without hesitation, every month.

    that said, who cares about these people, at all? is there such a thing as a "swedish contessa" anymore?

    as for her having been an "investment banker", any idiot (and i mean that in the worst way) can be an "investment banker", there are no legal requirements for it, you needn't be licensed by anyone; if you can walk and breathe, at the same time, you too can be an "investment banker"!

    weeeeeeeee haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! that, and a buck, will get you a small coffee at mcd's.

    frankly, i hope the two of them destroy each other, and they end up out on the street, in cardboard boxes.

    CP - (none / 0) (#93)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 05:49:41 PM EST
    Go read mine at #3 up this thread.

    And, yes, there are still Swedish countesses and other noble titles.  I've met a couple somewhere along the way.

    There's a term I've heard used:  "afghan", as in "afghan hound", as in "beautiful, lazy and useless".  The term is not of universal application, but it wouldn't exist if it didn't have meaning.

    Parent

    And some are not useless... (none / 0) (#95)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 06:11:15 PM EST
    Go check this one out:
     on this list, of about 400, #388 .

    Not that all people bearing that name (or any of the other names, like this one, #69 on the Baronial list of about 400) have actual titles, but some do.

    Parent

    #35, not #3 (none / 0) (#96)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 06:41:35 PM EST
    I hate to break it to anyone not up on this and disabuse their notions of true romance conquering all, but 20-something Swedish countesses are usually hired by investment banks for two reasons - to bring in their contacts and to be eye candy.

    Why you aren't satisfied to just deal with the "greedy" title this woman is being accused of is beyond me? Must you demean her all the more with this stereotypical put-down that she is nothing more than stupid and beautiful?

    Parent

    I never said she was stupid (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by scribe on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 08:24:20 PM EST
    Quite the contrary
    she had to be pretty darn smart to even get in the door

    Parent
    Not stupid, just (none / 0) (#101)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 01:03:48 AM EST
    "beautiful, lazy and useless".


    Parent
    True (none / 0) (#97)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 21, 2009 at 07:02:19 PM EST
    Those graduating from finishing school often speak several languages, and know much  more than the average person about the arts, culture and history. Some even can even engage in stimulating conversation in economics, and science.

    Most top dollar hookers, of both genders, are also highly educated.

    Parent

    Eat the Rich (none / 0) (#104)
    by DFLer on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    Aerosmith

    Obscene (none / 0) (#106)
    by DFLer on Sun Mar 22, 2009 at 10:14:29 AM EST
    Mark 10:25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
    Divorce-Styles of the Rich and Famous | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment