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.
For some, $3.5 million a year may not sound like much if a guy is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but that breaks down to $300k a month, and when looked at from that perspective, it’s an absurdity. She claimed that she needed 100k a month alone just for entertainment!!
And the way things are shaking out for Dr. Dre, the final divorce settlement will probably look about the same as this preliminary ruling….she’ll get this money until she remarries (which she’d be stupid to do) or until she’s dead. The children are adults, and she never produced a song in her life. Why in the hell do these divorce courts terrorize wealthy men this way?
What wrong with a judge ordering Dre to give her $30-$40 million dollars and telling her to go her own way? She seriously can’t survive on THAT???
I’m sorry it’s difficult for you to understand the SIMPLE concept that after a certain point you’re entitled to certain things if you decide your marriage isn’t going to work out. Whatever her standard of living was during the marriage, this judge has decided this is the amount of money needed to insure that standard is maintained until such time as a final decision has been made. It’s really not that hard to understand.
You can live with some reassurance though. You will absolutely NEVER have to worry about being in this situation yourself
For some, $3.5 million a year may not sound like much if a guy is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but that breaks down to $300k a month, and when looked at from that perspective, it’s an absurdity. She claimed that she needed 100k a month alone just for entertainment!!
And the way things are shaking out for Dr. Dre, the final divorce settlement will probably look about the same as this preliminary ruling….she’ll get this money until she remarries (which she’d be stupid to do) or until she’s dead. The children are adults, and she never produced a song in her life. Why in the hell do these divorce courts terrorize wealthy men this way?
What wrong with a judge ordering Dre to give her $30-$40 million dollars and telling her to go her own way? She seriously can’t survive on THAT???
Uh ... do you not understand capital investments? It is easy to earn 10% per year when you have hundreds of millions to play with. Dr. Dre is much better off paying $3.5 million annually than a lump sum of $40 million. Perhaps if you understood money better, you would never have had to swallow whatever bitter financial pill (that you undoubtedly instead blame on others) that lies behind the seething resentment in your post.
Here's the deal:
Dr. Dre has to pay less than 1/2 of 1% of his fortune (~$800,000,000) annually. If he has any investing competence at all, or even if he has the sense to hire someone who does, that's less than 1/20th of reasonably expected annual capital returns. And that's completely aside from his annual earnings, many of which are locked in even if he never worked again.
The court obviously - obviously - recognized him as the primary earner in its decision, when it issued a ruling in which he retains all of his fortune and has to pay out only a small fraction of his annual gains not counting his future earnings, whatever they may be.
And yet for some reason you're pouting about this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by desertdetroiter
Lol…what’s a strong prenup? Tell us. Because prenups ROUTINELY get tossed by these judges.
In the feverish imaginations of anonymous forum posters, yes.
In the real world? Uh... no.
Quote:
Judith Poller, who is also not involved in this case but has worked on high-caliber divorces often in part in California, said, “There’ve been very few instances where [prenups are] overturned, and the fact that somebody might say during the marriage, when in their happiest moment, ‘I’m sorry I made you go through this process, and I’m gonna rip it up,’ means absolutely nothing.”
She got basic maintenance. Is it a lot? Sure. That's because during the marriage, the joint entity that was the married couple earned lots and lots and lots and lots. He's getting the vast, vast majority.
There's nothing wrong with this ruling, despite your inability to understand it.
Uh ... do you not understand capital investments? It is easy to earn 10% per year when you have hundreds of millions to play with. Dr. Dre is much better off paying $3.5 million annually than a lump sum of $40 million. Perhaps if you understood money better, you would never have had to swallow whatever bitter financial pill (that you undoubtedly instead blame on others) that lies behind the seething resentment in your post.
Here's the deal:
Dr. Dre has to pay less than 1/2 of 1% of his fortune (~$800,000,000) annually. If he has any investing competence at all, or even if he has the sense to hire someone who does, that's less than 1/20th of reasonably expected annual capital returns. And that's completely aside from his annual earnings, many of which are locked in even if he never worked again.
The court obviously - obviously - recognized him as the primary earner in its decision, when it issued a ruling in which he retains all of his fortune and has to pay out only a small fraction of his annual gains not counting his future earnings, whatever they may be.
And yet for some reason you're pouting about this...
In the feverish imaginations of anonymous forum posters, yes.
She got basic maintenance. Is it a lot? Sure. That's because during the marriage, the joint entity that was the married couple earned lots and lots and lots and lots. He's getting the vast, vast majority.
There's nothing wrong with this ruling, despite your inability to understand it.
Uh ... do you not understand capital investments? It is easy to earn 10% per year when you have hundreds of millions to play with. Dr. Dre is much better off paying $3.5 million annually than a lump sum of $40 million. Perhaps if you understood money better, you would never have had to swallow whatever bitter financial pill (that you undoubtedly instead blame on others) that lies behind the seething resentment in your post.
Here's the deal:
Dr. Dre has to pay less than 1/2 of 1% of his fortune (~$800,000,000) annually. If he has any investing competence at all, or even if he has the sense to hire someone who does, that's less than 1/20th of reasonably expected annual capital returns. And that's completely aside from his annual earnings, many of which are locked in even if he never worked again.
The court obviously - obviously - recognized him as the primary earner in its decision, when it issued a ruling in which he retains all of his fortune and has to pay out only a small fraction of his annual gains not counting his future earnings, whatever they may be.
And yet for some reason you're pouting about this...
In the feverish imaginations of anonymous forum posters, yes.
She got basic maintenance. Is it a lot? Sure. That's because during the marriage, the joint entity that was the married couple earned lots and lots and lots and lots. He's getting the vast, vast majority.
There's nothing wrong with this ruling, despite your inability to understand it.
Inaccurate.
Especially if said 3.5 million "annuity" rolls over a lifetime.
The lump sum would be ideal.
The most fulfilling relationship in life, is marrying and having children, and living until very old age together welcoming grandchildren and maybe great grandchildren.
Wealthy men shouldn't avoid that joy.
What about Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn ?
They have one child together (Wyatt) and Kurt helped with Oliver and Kate (Goldie's kids from her marriage to Bill Hudson).
They've been together for over 35 years, and they aren't married.
Whatever joy Kurt has missed out on, I'd guess is canceled out by the feeling of satisfaction he and Goldie probably both have that they could have walked out at any time without tons of financial fuss, but that didn't and have been fortunate enough to be happy.
For some, $3.5 million a year may not sound like much if a guy is worth hundreds of millions of dollars, but that breaks down to $300k a month, and when looked at from that perspective, it’s an absurdity. She claimed that she needed 100k a month alone just for entertainment!!
And the way things are shaking out for Dr. Dre, the final divorce settlement will probably look about the same as this preliminary ruling….she’ll get this money until she remarries (which she’d be stupid to do) or until she’s dead. The children are adults, and she never produced a song in her life. Why in the hell do these divorce courts terrorize wealthy men this way?
What wrong with a judge ordering Dre to give her $30-$40 million dollars and telling her to go her own way? She seriously can’t survive on THAT???
You know the divorce laws before you get married. Spousal support allows the disadvantaged person to continue to live a life style they are accustom to.
Maaaaaaan….$300k monthly until she hits the casket!! Think long and hard about that. Why attach that to him for the rest of his life? What if he wants to create a new family with a new wife? He should be saddled with his last wife at the tune of $300k monthly? That’s just insanity.
Judges are tossing out these prenups a lot of times when they get challenged. I’m starting to feel like men might need to eschew marriage if they have any serious assets.
Where are the statistics showing prenups are thrown out a lot? What I read, not so much.
Men need to think smarter in who they marry and how that marriage is structured.
Example, you just said what if he wants to create a new family with a new wife. He is 56. Thats is a good recipe for paying wife #2 300K/month spousal support plus child support.
Nicole is 51 years old, and if she is paid 3.5 mill per year until she is 81 that is a total of 105 mill....He got off cheap.
Yep. His net worth is like 800million.
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.
