| Welcome to Coffeetalk. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Entitlements; ...marriage and divorce | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 25 2007, 11:04 PM (149 Views) | |
| Eral | May 25 2007, 11:04 PM Post #1 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/i-earn...9601669839.html This story is about a man who wanted to hide 68 million pounds but couldn't, and he is very miffed. Love the way the woman is described as having made no contribution to his success. Yep, I bet she sat around eating expensive chocolate or went shopping for herself the whole time. :rolleyes: 20 million pounds wasn't enough money for her, he thinks 48 million is too much. (I guess you feel kind of destitute living on 80 million pounds. )Question: is the woman a dependant, or a partner? If she is a dependant, the laws are meant to to protect her. But everyone always gets cross when this happens. If a partner, she is entitled to half. Everyone always gets cross when this happens, too. When a friend of mine got divorced, his lawyers told him it was a good thing she had worked all the time of the marriage, because she was entitled to less that way. (He owned the house prior to the marriage.) We all agree women who raise their children and maintain the household are making an equal contribution to the marriage. But what about women with servants and nannies? Are they perceived as getting a free ride? Is a relationship "work"? |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | May 26 2007, 11:46 AM Post #2 |
|
I haz powah!
|
As I understand it, the law in the UK says you start from a 50-50 split and then adjust for extraordinary contributions. This case will have a big impact on the Mills-McCartney case and I bet Paul is now going to be very concerned by that outcome. |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | May 26 2007, 03:03 PM Post #3 |
|
Reliant
|
I don't see how this would affect the McCartney case. He was well established before the marriage and his success isn't in any way dependent on Mills. If this was his first wife, I think there would be a very good argument for a 50/50 settlement. The wife in question, has a very good career (in theory) and is capable of supporting herself nicely. She may have worked on her career for the last 25 yrs. For me I think it depends. Steven Spielberg's wife Amy Irving walked off with an estimated $100 mil. after a four year marriage, she did have a child with Spielberg but the sum seems excessive. Apparently there was a pre-nup agreement written on a napkin which was deemed invalid. I'm not sure if the agreement should've been invalidated, after all the intent was there and she did sign it. I think in this case, I like to know more about the trust, in theory, the trust should be inviolate but he isn't making that argument. Here's a scenario: A couple has been married eight years and have one child. Both work, they have one common asset, a house which they both contribute to the cost, The husband makes more money and contributes a greater share to the expenses. He pays the mortage and phone, electric, heat. She pays the taxes, internet access and satelitte tv and buys the daily food, he pays for takeout and resturant. The wife takes care of day to day cleaning, he takes care of the day to day outside. If either have a shortfall, either spouse will take up the slack. The mother pays for the day to day care of the child, clothes, food, co-pays for medical, and the father provides insurance. The wife is the dominant caretaker of the child but the father is very attentive to the child when not working. What should happen? Should the mother be the custodial parent or should both parents share custody equally? Should the house be divided down the middle or should it be a 60/40 split? Now one could argue the wife's career was diminished by being a full time care taker of the child for the first three years but the husband enabled the wife the be a full time caretaker of the child. The couple wants to divorce, what is owed to each one? What's a fair distribution? One question about careers, how much influence does a spouse have on an career? The answer is it varies. Take the classic, the wife supported the husband while he got his degrees and took care of the house and children. The husband becomes successful. The wife educated the husband for the career but let's face it, even the best degree doesn't mean the individual will be successful. What if the spouse was a negative? Always denigrating the other spouse and their work? In my case, neither of us have much input in how successful or not our ventures are, both of us are supportive but the other's success is based a lot more on outside factors and individual performance. I think Cherie Blair could ask Tony Blair for a lot of money if they divorced. The classic wife who devoted her entire life to marriage and family and then is callously thrown over in her twilight years isn't the standard in most divorces. It certainly isn't the standard in the referenced case. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | May 26 2007, 05:32 PM Post #4 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Cherie Blair, being a human rights lawyer does pretty well, actually earning more than Tony per year as Prime Minister. She has cashed in on his supposed prestige to earn loads doing those talks and stuff - like when she ripped off an Australian Charity - she still insisted on her fee for that talk. I don't think anyone would feel sorry for that greedy bitch if Tony "got rid" of her. |
![]() |
|
| Joe | May 26 2007, 07:43 PM Post #5 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
I think it's wrong that laws often go waaaay further than simply make sure a woman is supported; it seems like they try to match the lifestyle she had in the marriage. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | May 26 2007, 08:41 PM Post #6 |
|
Reliant
|
I was thinking of Cherie Blair in the sense I thought they had been together prior to his high profile political career (I may be wrong) and such a career choice does have an effect on the whole family and a spouse would deserve some heavy compensation. It's different if they married when he was already established. Different example: If George Bush divorced Laura Bush, Laura Bush would deserve some cash. Or, Bill and Hilary Clinton, although, it could be argued that he made her career but by all accounts she was a great factor to his success and both presidential spouses have had to endure a lot of hostility, public scrutiny and humiliation. An active and positive political spouse can add immeasurably to a career. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Joe | May 26 2007, 09:00 PM Post #7 |
|
Coffea Canephora
|
I think Bill would be just as successful as he has been regardless of who he was married to. |
|
In the shadow of the light from a black sun Frigid statue standing icy blue and numb Where are the frost giants I've begged for protection? I'm freezing | |
![]() |
|
| lara | May 27 2007, 12:19 AM Post #8 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
There are a heck of a lot more poor single moms than poor single dads. Personally, I've known two women who split with their husbands who then had to chase them with lawyers to get a penny. My cousin's husband left her for her maid of honour (years and years after the wedding). He quit his job and started doing consulting work in an attempt to hide what he was earning. He cancelled the credit cards she was using to pay her bills. She put him through university - he has a PhD - working as a nurse, and was working on her own PhD when he apparently decided he wasn't getting enough attention and up and left. She had two kids and had to borrow from her parents to buy groceries while he built a brand new five-bedroom home to move into with the maid of honour. Our wealthy uncle paid for her lawyer and now she's getting back, and after what he's put her through, she more than deserves every penny. The other one, she was the instigator of the split because he was becoming more and more conservative and she figured now that the kids were in school, she wanted to become an engineer, not be a housekeeper. He wanted her to go to his evangelical church and she's not a Christian. She left, and he wouldn't give her any money because he was convinced she was sleeping with her new boyfriend before they split (not true) and he didn't want the new boyfriend spending his money (ridiculous). She ended up on welfare for a summer. Then there's the woman that Bex, Krazy and I know who left an abusive husband and lives on welfare while trying to gain the confidence to make a proper life for herself. You know what? These things have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis - there can be no hard-and-fast rule - but as far as I can tell from the stats and personal experience, in general, the women get the short end of the financial stick. |
![]() |
|
| Eral | May 27 2007, 12:32 AM Post #9 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I have to say I do NOT understand the thinking behind "we've been married for three years, I'm entitled to half of everything." Half of everything earned over the three years, maybe. Why isn't that the law? The relationship Regullus describes is a really equal one: the question about the house depends on what arrangements they make for care of their child. Do they want to keep the marital home to maintain a sense of continuity for the child? Will they be able to divide care, or will one parent have a greater share? Is it possible to maintain the home on a 50/50 split? In which case, is a split in favour of the main carer equitable, or at least acceptable? Provision for the child means a three-way split: two parts going to the carer. It can look lopsided, but isn't. "No fault" divorce laws are good for people who have come to the end of being able to live together and love each other: and are meant to enable fair and quick resolutions. But any blanket rule is going to be unfair to someone somewhere. I think it's an improvement on having to prove your partner is a complete bastard/witch. Pre-nups: I wonder if Cinderella had to sign one? :lol: EDIT: Everybody is poorer immediately after a divorce: you lose assets and security and income. Getting back on your feet again depends on how quickly you begin earning enough to cover your needs. Happens to most men a lot quicker, simply because they get paid more and usually work full-time. |
![]() |
|
| Krazy | May 27 2007, 06:18 AM Post #10 |
|
I haz powah!
|
Case by case if the only fair way of looking at it. The problem with that "entitled to x years worth" is that I reckon that would be a nightmare to calculate along with the intangibles of what it means financially to be a partner. After what time has it been "long enough" married for a 50/50 split base to work from? 5,10,20 or 50 years? |
![]() |
|
| Regullus | May 27 2007, 02:01 PM Post #11 |
|
Reliant
|
While I was aware of the court case Anna Nichole Smith had against her step son it was only after her death I became aware of the details in the relationship and to my mind she was entitled to her 50% share of trust fund interest accumulated during the marriage. The old man pursued and 'kept' her, he did wish to take care of her and her son, she appears to have had genuine fondness and gratitude towards him, she also declined to marry him until her career was established. The amount of 50% share of interest accumulated was huge due to the man's wealth but I think deserved. I have no reason to believe he was too senile to have affection for her. I know too many competent 80s year old to play that card. This very well might have been the case for Amy Irving as well. Now as to an average three year relationship, no, I don't think they deserve 50/50 of everything but 50/50 of joint net profit, maybe if the marriage has been a relatively equal partnership. If one of the partners worked and paid for everything during the marriage and the other got an advanced degree, no, but if they had a child, then yes. It's definitely a case by case situation and there are plenty examples of both sexes getting shafted. As to poverty, if you take the example of my relatively equal couple, both will probably be 50% poorer because the husband will have to pay child support and that will be based on his income and undoubtedly he would be required to pay at least 20% of his income in child support.. Also both couples will either have to pay rents or mortgages. Divorce does cut wealth. But how much wealth does it cut? Will either spouse be significantly poorer than when they were single? I also think of marriage as a contract and it does seem to me if someone breaks the contract then maybe the injured party does deserve something. You know, if you have one spouse who is nice and equable and then the other spouse is similar to Joe's friend's spouse, well, maybe there should be a penalty for being, in this case, a psychotic dick. |
| |
![]() |
|
| Eral | Jun 1 2007, 06:55 AM Post #12 |
|
Kopi Luwak
|
I wonder what the headline would been if the woman was the millionaire and the man wanted half. Surely this happens to movie stars who collect short-term husbands. How much money do those men get? The deal in marriage is now a partnership, where it's a 50/50 split, and the woman is recognised as having civil rights and having made a contribution. It's been about two hundred years since it was established that women could own property in marriage and have guardianship of their children. If you get married, that's how it is. Don't like it? Don't marry, or get an agreement you like drawn up. I remember an episode of Oprah about women who divorced their incredibly rich husbands and got badly dudded by the pre-nup. Question 1: why did they sign it? Question 2: why is that legal? |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up for Free |
|
| « Previous Topic · Table 32 · Next Topic » |



Yep, I bet she sat around eating expensive chocolate or went shopping for herself the whole time. :rolleyes:
)
(He owned the house prior to the marriage.)




8:54 AM Jul 11