PDA

View Full Version : marriage - a wonderful institution



ratewhore
3rd August 2006, 18:18
Certainly was for this woman - £48 million divorce payout. Seemingly £8 million of assets and £20 million lump sum wasn't enough for her...

bless her (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/5242294.stm)

:cool2:

swamp
3rd August 2006, 21:20
It's a good day for law firms specialising in prenuptial agreements.

AtW
3rd August 2006, 21:40
It's a good day for law firms specialising in prenuptial agreements.

Yes, especially because they are not valid in the UK.

IMO the real business opportunity is to sell insurance that will cover payouts to set figure, of course it wont be cheap but could be good peace of mind.

Chico
4th August 2006, 08:37
I have a novel idea, its quite a revolutionary concept,how about marriage being for life? Hmmm what a thought - could it possibly work, no divorce, couples treating each other as valued human beings rather than disposable commodities at the first hint of trouble....Hmmmm :confused:

The Lone Gunman
4th August 2006, 08:37
I don't see why she is not entitled to half!

Read the article. When they married neither had a great deal. The business has been built up whilst they were married and her contribution as a wife will have been no less commited.
When they got wed they made themselves into an equal partnership. When that partnership dissolves then she is entitled to her half.

If he realy believes nobody could need more than he is offering then why does he need all the rest? Why doesnt he take the 20 and a house and give her the rest?

I feel the same about Macca. Even though he had ammased his fortune prior to getting wed he still did the deed and that includes "all that I have I give to thee". Give her half.

I disagree with ongoing maintenance agreements apart from for kids.
The wife often wants to have the lifestyle she is used to but conveniently forgets that the life style included her washing, cleaning, cooking and certain sexual services too. I dont expect she will be willing to carry those on so why should hubby carry on supporting her life style.

AtW
4th August 2006, 09:25
I have a novel idea, its quite a revolutionary concept,how about marriage being for life?

How about just have automatic marriage contract which is that any side is only entitled to what they earned during life and its only the kids who should get maintenance not wife. This would cut off gold diggers and thus make marriages less sham.

Clog II The Avenger
4th August 2006, 09:40
I have a novel idea, its quite a revolutionary concept,how about marriage being for life? Hmmm what a thought - could it possibly work, no divorce, couples treating each other as valued human beings rather than disposable commodities at the first hint of trouble....Hmmmm :confused:

The Church vows say “ For better or for worse” Not for worse and worse and worse”

The vows also say “For richer or poorer” in which case if the husband is in debt, then the wife should also pay half the debt plus a sum to pay it off for the rest of her life.

ratewhore
4th August 2006, 09:42
The Church vows say “ For better or for worse” Not for worse and worse and worse”

The vows also say “For richer or poorer” in which case if the husband is in debt, then the wife should also pay half the debt plus a sum to pay it off for the rest of her life.

Well that never happens does it?

:cool2:

ASB
4th August 2006, 10:29
I don't see why she is not entitled to half!

Quite. As far as I can tell 30 years ago when they married they had nothing. Most of the assets have been built up jointly, the kids have left home so they are out of the equation. She gets 37% of the joint assets.

Seems fair enought got me. (Of course I'd be winging like hell if I was on the receiving end but it's not unreasonable).

Doesn't seem to be a popular view though.

Jabberwocky
4th August 2006, 10:56
Quite. As far as I can tell 30 years ago when they married they had nothing. Most of the assets have been built up jointly, the kids have left home so they are out of the equation. She gets 37% of the joint assets.

Seems fair enought got me. (Of course I'd be winging like hell if I was on the receiving end but it's not unreasonable).

Doesn't seem to be a popular view though.

Bah she is just a portable recreational/baby machine -houskeeping was covered by free board and lodging. If you make any money from your pitiful existence does that blow-up doll get 37% ?

Bagpuss
4th August 2006, 10:58
Is that would you would say to your dad (if your parents got divorced)?

DimPrawn
4th August 2006, 10:58
Stick to you right hand Jabberwocky. Free love and all that.

The Lone Gunman
4th August 2006, 11:13
Bah she is just a portable recreational/baby machine -houskeeping was covered by free board and lodging. If you make any money from your pitiful existence does that blow-up doll get 37% ?Living up to your class clown label I see.
Marriage is a partnership freely entered into. Many of us have wives who not only run the household, but also support us so we are free to concentrate on running our businesses. Some wives give up careers or alternate lives to support us.
I doubt this chap would have been quite so succesful without the support of a good wife.

Her contribution is moot. Marriage is a partnership, assets should be split straight down the middle.

If you narried your blow up doll then she is entitled to half your assets.

John Galt
4th August 2006, 11:48
I don't see why she is liable for half - the article makes no mention of her making any contribution to the family earnings - other than to spend them I would think. As the mother of his children she is entitled to a reasonable settlement but I really don't see that she 'deserves' half his fortune

Swamp Thing
4th August 2006, 12:41
I don't see why she is liable for half - the article makes no mention of her making any contribution to the family earnings - other than to spend them I would think. As the mother of his children she is entitled to a reasonable settlement but I really don't see that she 'deserves' half his fortune

Well, she got 37%. As a percentage this is actually quite low. I settled at 62% to my ex. As a principle, the % pissed me off, as it was a short marriage, albeit with 1 kid. But as a sum, it equated to 5 figures, which I have more than made up for in the 3 years' since, so I have relaxed a lot on the issue.

But it's the other way round for this milliionaire. I think the judge did him an absolute favour at 37%. It's just that the guy saw the issue in absolute terms - £48mn. If I was him I'd put up and shut up. I think he said that no reasonable person would get thru' £48mn in their lifetime. Well OK, but would he get thru' the other £82mn in his lifetime?

Diestl
4th August 2006, 12:49
He could have just spend a million getting her bumbed off and hired a nanny for the kids, what a clown!. Im sure a million would get you a top class hitman with no link back to you.

Jabberwocky
4th August 2006, 14:56
Living up to your class clown label I see.
Marriage is a partnership freely entered into. Many of us have wives who not only run the household, but also support us so we are free to concentrate on running our businesses. Some wives give up careers or alternate lives to support us.
I doubt this chap would have been quite so succesful without the support of a good wife.

Her contribution is moot. Marriage is a partnership, assets should be split straight down the middle.

If you narried your blow up doll then she is entitled to half your assets.

Clown eh ? I think you can buy everything this gold digger provided - housekeeper, nanny, surrogate mother - it costs a lot less than 48m. Unless she came up with the big business ideas I think she should just get expected loss of earnings based on age and education.

Joe Black
6th August 2006, 18:05
IMO the real business opportunity is to sell insurance that will cover payouts to set figure, of course it wont be cheap but could be good peace of mind.Would certainly bring a new meaning to the terms 'third-party, fire and theft'. :)

The Lone Gunman
7th August 2006, 08:27
Clown eh ? I think you can buy everything this gold digger provided - housekeeper, nanny, surrogate mother - it costs a lot less than 48m. Unless she came up with the big business ideas I think she should just get expected loss of earnings based on age and education.I agree with all that, and if he, or any other man just wanted those services then he should not get married should he.
So why did he get married? Why does anybody get married?
You can not put a value on a marriage. It is entered into freely and is an equal partnership. If it hits the rocks then you split the assets or debts down the middle and walk away. Obviously children alter this equation.
It is not his money it is their money.
If he thinks the amount he is offering her is more than enough than anyone will need why does he need more?

Mr Crosby
7th August 2006, 08:51
He could have just spend a million getting her bumbed off and hired a nanny for the kids, what a clown!. Im sure a million would get you a top class hitman with no link back to you.

You could get her wiped out for a couple of grand.

Lucifer Box
7th August 2006, 08:52
You could get her wiped out for a couple of grand.
You could probably find a bloke in Glasgow who'd do it for fun.

Mailman
7th August 2006, 10:47
I feel the same about Macca. Even though he had ammased his fortune prior to getting wed he still did the deed and that includes "all that I have I give to thee". Give her half.

Thats the thing though, he amassed his fortune BEFORE that other slappa turned up...that means she shouldnt be in line for half of everything he made before they got married.

In fact, she should get exactly half of everything she contributed to his career BEFORE they got married (being about ZERO) :D

Mailman

The Lone Gunman
7th August 2006, 11:27
Thats the thing though, he amassed his fortune BEFORE that other slappa turned up...that means she shouldnt be in line for half of everything he made before they got married.

In fact, she should get exactly half of everything she contributed to his career BEFORE they got married (being about ZERO) :D

MailmanSo you dont believe a legal contract between two people should be legally binding?
The marriage contract simply makes everything joint owned. If you dont like that then you can make a pre-nup to alter certain terms and conditions.

If you don't like the terms and conditions then walk away.

Mailman
7th August 2006, 12:37
I think its already been said that pre-nups are about as useful as t1ts on a bull in this country.

Mailman