Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Her husband is worth $11B. She gave him a child and 12 years of her life, which were presumably her high earning years as a model. He cheated on her with a younger woman.
The amount she's asking is not going to even leave a dent in his fortune. The fact that she may or may not have warped values has nothing to do with it. If he failed to get a prenup, that's not her problem.
Pay her the value of her "lost earnings" as a model for those years and then kick her to the curb. She can keep her clothes and anything else that was purchased for her during the marriage.
There are a lot of unmarried men posting here...or bitterly divorced ones.
Why does someone have to be bitter because of an unfair law. Seems those in favor of this nonsense are bitter at men moving on from lazy gold digging women.
Why does someone have to be bitter because of an unfair law. Seems those in favor of this nonsense are bitter at men moving on from lazy gold digging women.
Be more picky who you marry if you are ending up with lazy gold diggers. Many families do function by having a parent not work and run the household and one working or making the money. It isn't right to have a woman or man give up years of their lives to focus on the family only to "kick them to the curb when the money earner wants a younger play thing. Its called a family.
And people wonder why guys don't want to marry now.
Yet some guys keep at it. Dump wife one for a younger model, then marry an even younger model while still married to wife 2. Perhaps guys shouldn't marry women young enough to be their daughters knowing the only reason shes willing is because of his money, knowing when she finally leaves he is obligated to take care of his property in the fashion HE created.
I have no sympathy for either of them, they both knew what they were doing.
Under islamic law, there is no sharing of assets or alimony. Alimony used to exist for a short period of time and was abrogated. But the woman is advantaged because she does not have to contribute financially at all. This makes much more sense.
I don't understand how in the west men have allowed their women to sue them into giving up their house, savings, which they often owned prior to the marriage. Once the marriage has ended, no spouse should be able to be entitled to their ex's property.
Because in the west women contribute. Women make up almost half of the workforce and contribute more than half of the childcare and domestic responsibilities, therefore it is not the mans house, savings, etc. Marriage in the west is a partnership not an ownership so marital assets belong to both partners. Its not a secret.
While reading the article, I found nothing that mentioned any kind of alimony or regular, ongoing financial support. Or anything about who initiated the divorce. Both would make a difference in many things.
Past that, does anyone really understand the needs and drives of the super-wealthy? I sure don't, and I have known a couple of billionaires. Neither was an Arabian prince, though, and neither married a trophy wife.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
