NationStates Jolt Archive

Now read this and tell me if this is fair at all. This is another problem with society today. Rewarded for mis-behavior.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/divorce.settlement.ap/index.html

:headbang: For the love of God!

"Honey...I've met someone who gives better sex than you. I want a divorse, and half your money!"

Just when I thought people could not stoop any lower...

Yep, its times like these that I am glad to be an American--this is what makes our country great....on a serious note: Are there any rich heiresses here that want to marry me?

Now read this and tell me if this is fair at all. This is another problem with society today. Rewarded for mis-behavior.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/divorce.settlement.ap/index.html

That sucks. She should get stabbed in the face with a rod of phosphorous.

That sucks. She should get stabbed in the face with a rod of phosphorous.

red, white, or black?

red, white, or black?
Who cares?

White.

Now read this and tell me if this is fair at all. This is another problem with society today. Rewarded for mis-behavior.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/divorce.settlement.ap/index.html
He got most of the money by suing his former boss, then she gets most of what he won when she has an affiar and causes their divorce. Hmm. Sounds fair to me! :D

He got most of the money by suing his former boss, then she gets most of what he won when she has an affiar and causes their divorce. Hmm. Sounds fair to me! :D

Guess what comes around goes around.

Now read this and tell me if this is fair at all. This is another problem with society today. Rewarded for mis-behavior.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/divorce.settlement.ap/index.html

It probably won't suprise you that this bothers me not at all.

I can't find how long they were married, but they met in 1978 (ironically, when she was married to someone else). It appears safe to assume they were married at least 20 years.

Their estate -- that bears repeating their estate -- was worth over $168 million. She recieved 27%. She lost over $40 million dollars due to her "misbehavior." She clearly wasn't rewarded.

This is typical media sensationalism. Completely unbalanced, going for shock value.

Yep, its times like these that I am glad to be an American--this is what makes our country great....on a serious note: Are there any rich heiresses here that want to marry me? Er… by "this" I hope you weren't referring to the cheating divorce wife…?

Er… by "this" I hope you weren't referring to the cheating divorce wife…?
For some odd reason, I think s/he was joking.

Guess what comes around goes around.
One can only hope! :D

The couple met in 1978 when Howard Sosin was an assistant professor at Columbia University. At the time, she was married to another man and working in retail.

Hey man, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it...

The @$45 million settlement is only 25% of thier wealth. How o how will he live on the other @$150 million...

I'm not sure why this is news, other than its the woman 'getting over' while cheating instead of the man, or because they are rich it's important. When a woman (or man) recieves 1/4th of $30,000 a year worth of assests no one cares.

You guys notice how the transgressions were found? Upgrade of a computer... How many divorces are initiated due to finding things on the computer. This would be an interesting statistic.

Hey man, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it...

The @$45 million settlement is only 25% of thier wealth. How o how will he live on the other @$150 million...

I'm not sure why this is news, other than its the woman 'getting over' while cheating instead of the man, or because they are rich it's important. When a woman (or man) recieves 1/4th of $30,000 a year worth of assests no one cares.


Yes good point. But it hurts the man with 30k far worse than one with millions.

He got most of the money by suing his former boss, then she gets most of what he won when she has an affiar and causes their divorce. Hmm. Sounds fair to me! :D

Ooh... :(

Doesn't anyone make money from an honest living anymore?

America: When you can't get what you want by being lazy...SUE!

Yes good point. But it hurts the man with 30k far worse than one with millions.
Hurts them both to be honest.

Hey man, he knew the job was dangerous when he took it...

The @$45 million settlement is only 25% of thier wealth. How o how will he live on the other @$150 million...

I'm not sure why this is news, other than its the woman 'getting over' while cheating instead of the man, or because they are rich it's important. When a woman (or man) recieves 1/4th of $30,000 a year worth of assests no one cares.

Are you another one of them stinkin' lawyer types? 'Cuz you sound like one. :D

(Something about that fake accent in my head makes me wanna say "you gotta real pretty mouth." Definitely need therapy.)

Now read this and tell me if this is fair at all. This is another problem with society today. Rewarded for mis-behavior.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/25/divorce.settlement.ap/index.html

It is implied, though not explicetly stated, that she divorced her previous husband for him. It is therefor possible they had an affair. If so, he knew what he married - so can't complain.

Otherwise.. 20 years of marriage. That does count for something.

It is implied, though not explicetly stated, that she divorced her previous husband for him. It is therefor possible they had an affair. If so, he knew what he married - so can't complain.

Otherwise.. 20 years of marriage. That does count for something.


Brings up a good point. If perhaps when you met your spouse they were married and or engaged to another person. What makes you think they wouldn't do it to you?

Are you another one of them stinkin' lawyer types? 'Cuz you sound like one. :D

(Something about that fake accent in my head makes me wanna say "you gotta real pretty mouth." Definitely need therapy.)
If I was I'd have had a lot less trouble...



Now I have to go whimper in a corner because you've reminded me of Deliverance....they need a shuddering smiley...

Brings up a good point. If perhaps when you met your spouse they were married and or engaged to another person. What makes you think they wouldn't do it to you?


yep, if they will cheat with you, they will cheat on you.

you know, i just can't bring myself to feel sorry for the guy. divorces means splitting things up. that's just how it works. i guess he'll just have to work really hard to persevere with his pittance of "$89 million in bank accounts, 10 of the couple's 18 cars, $960,000 worth of private club memberships and $22 million in fine art."

you know, i just can't bring myself to feel sorry for the guy. divorces means splitting things up. that's just how it works. i guess he'll just have to work really hard to persevere with his pittance of "$89 million in bank accounts, 10 of the couple's 18 cars, $960,000 worth of private club memberships and $22 million in fine art."
LOL *agrees*

I love these fourums their so funny all you americans just fighting you guys should
:fluffle:

you know, i just can't bring myself to feel sorry for the guy. divorces means splitting things up. that's just how it works. i guess he'll just have to work really hard to persevere with his pittance of "$89 million in bank accounts, 10 of the couple's 18 cars, $960,000 worth of private club memberships and $22 million in fine art."

Agreed. And like Cat Tribe said, this is typical media sensationalism. Apart from the fact that we don't even know them, I don't see how it is any of our business.

Im sure hes got enough cash left over for a hitman to come and visit her one night.

It probably won't suprise you that this bothers me not at all.

I can't find how long they were married, but they met in 1978 (ironically, when she was married to someone else). It appears safe to assume they were married at least 20 years.

Their estate -- that bears repeating their estate -- was worth over $168 million. She recieved 27%. She lost over $40 million dollars due to her "misbehavior." She clearly wasn't rewarded.

This is typical media sensationalism. Completely unbalanced, going for shock value.

She got far less than 50%, and this makes me happy. But exactly what did she do to make you call it her estate?

In this case I have no idea, maybe they struggled together through hard times and good and contributed her share. Maybe not, I have no idea.

But there is another case I am thinking about(cant remember the people) where the lady married the guy after he was already rich. She never did a damn thing except shop. They had multiple housekeepers/nannies to take care of the house and kids ect. While she didnt get half of the money he had pre-marriage(she still got a chunk), she got half of all the money he generated since the point they got married.

To all you feminists out there, what exactly was her contribution? She didnt work, she didnt take care of the house or kids. Do you think its fair they split 50/50 on the money he made after they married? I dont know what he did(maybe he inherited a business, who knows) but at least he went to office and worked every day. Maybe he was a complete idiot, but once again, he went to the office while all she did was buy stuff.

I am all for saying that taking care of the house and family needs to be accounted for, but simply being alive and female doesnt mean you are doing that.

edit: or alive and male for that matter.

Im sure hes got enough cash left over for a hitman to come and visit her one night.

Im sure he has enough cash left over that his life would be better off without the headache

She got far less than 50%, and this makes me happy. But exactly did she do to make you call it her estate?

In this case I have no idea, maybe they struggled together through hard times and bad and contriuted her share.

But there is another case I am thinking about(cant remember the people) where the lady married the guy after he was already rich. She never did a damn thing except shop. They had multiple housekeepers/nannies to take care of the house and kids ect. While she didnt get half of the money he had pre marriage(she still got a chunk), she got half of all the money he generated since the point they got married.

To all you feminists out there, what exactly was her contribution? She didnt work, she didnt take care of the house or kids. Do you think its fair they split 50/50 on the money he made after they married? I dont know what he did(maybe he inherited a business, who knows) but at least he went to office and worked every day. Maybe he was a complete idiot, but once again, he went to the office while all she did was buy stuff.

Gee, marriage is a legal institution.

When you get married you are essentially signing a contract. You agree to a certain comingling of assests. The terms vary by state. But as a general rule -- all your base belong to us. Everything belongs to both unless specifically provided as separate (depending on what state you are in this may or may not be possible).

As to "what was her contribution," it depends. But it was whatever he agreed to. :D Sometimes it is child-raising or homemaking. Sometimes its to be a trophy or a political ally. Sometimes its sex. I'm not going to speculate further.

In Connecticut, where they got divorced, the following applies (according to this website (http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/divorce_primer.html) which I corroborated):

Connecticut is referred to as an "all property equitable distribution state." In Connecticut, the Court has the power to "assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other." Conn. Gen. Stats. § 46b-81. Any property, therefore, regardless of when or how acquired, can be re-distributed by the Court. See, e.g. North v. North, 183 Conn. 35 (1981) (all property, including pre-marital or inherited property, is subject to division by the court). The statute "does not limit, either by timing or method of acquisition or by source of funds, the property subject to a trial court's broad power [to allocate]." Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356, 364 (1998).

In making the allocation, the factors the Court will consider are: the length of the marriage, the causes of the dissolution or separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, special needs, future earning capacity and prospect for future acquisition of capital assets and income. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81.

The court also considers the contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation of the assets. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81. Homemaking is considered a valuable contribution to the acquisition and appreciation of assets.

Property acquired prior to the marriage is often, but not always, considered the separate property of the person who acquired it. Appreciations or additions to that property may be considered marital acquisitions.

In the Sosin case, we don't have a lot of facts, so we don't know much of the factors involved. This went to trial and the judge decided she got 27%. Without knowing more details, seems vaguely fair. Regardless, I am sure either side that is unhappy (probably both) will appeal.

This is one of the many reasons why romantic notions of marriage shouldn't lead anyone to rush to altar. Marriage is a contract. Read the fine print.

She got far less than 50%, and this makes me happy. But exactly what did she do to make you call it her estate?

In this case I have no idea, maybe they struggled together through hard times and good and contributed her share. Maybe not, I have no idea.

But there is another case I am thinking about(cant remember the people) where the lady married the guy after he was already rich. She never did a damn thing except shop. They had multiple housekeepers/nannies to take care of the house and kids ect. While she didnt get half of the money he had pre-marriage(she still got a chunk), she got half of all the money he generated since the point they got married.

To all you feminists out there, what exactly was her contribution? She didnt work, she didnt take care of the house or kids. Do you think its fair they split 50/50 on the money he made after they married? I dont know what he did(maybe he inherited a business, who knows) but at least he went to office and worked every day. Maybe he was a complete idiot, but once again, he went to the office while all she did was buy stuff.

I am all for saying that taking care of the house and family needs to be accounted for, but simply being alive and female doesnt mean you are doing that.

edit: or alive and male for that matter.

Regardless, I think 50/50 is fair in almost every case...

:headbang: For the love of God!

"Honey...I've met someone who gives better sex than you. I want a divorse, and half your money!"

Just when I thought people could not stoop any lower...
OMG! Really? Someone did that? AWESOME!!! :D

She got far less than 50%, and this makes me happy. But exactly what did she do to make you call it her estate?

In this case I have no idea, maybe they struggled together through hard times and good and contributed her share. Maybe not, I have no idea.

But there is another case I am thinking about(cant remember the people) where the lady married the guy after he was already rich. She never did a damn thing except shop. They had multiple housekeepers/nannies to take care of the house and kids ect. While she didnt get half of the money he had pre-marriage(she still got a chunk), she got half of all the money he generated since the point they got married.

To all you feminists out there, what exactly was her contribution? She didnt work, she didnt take care of the house or kids. Do you think its fair they split 50/50 on the money he made after they married? I dont know what he did(maybe he inherited a business, who knows) but at least he went to office and worked every day. Maybe he was a complete idiot, but once again, he went to the office while all she did was buy stuff.

I am all for saying that taking care of the house and family needs to be accounted for, but simply being alive and female doesnt mean you are doing that.

edit: or alive and male for that matter.

Yeah i never understood that either. It seems to be taken for granted that whatever the spouse with the lesser amount of money does during the marriage they are entitled to half of the combined estate when they split up and no-one ever questions it. Someone care to explain it? Obviously she didnt get half in this case, but it was still a hell of a lot for doing nothing.

one word: prenuptual

I don't see how it is any of our business.

Its my business becuase I am an American and everything is Americas business!! Or else the terrorist win!! (j/k)

Yeah i never understood that either. It seems to be taken for granted that whatever the spouse with the lesser amount of money does during the marriage they are entitled to half of the combined estate when they split up and no-one ever questions it. Someone care to explain it? Obviously she didnt get half in this case, but it was still a hell of a lot for doing nothing.

Well we don't know that he said did nothing. From what I can gather they were married before all the riches came, she probably gave him a lot of support in getting there. And as has already been pointed out, they were married for 20 years - which is quite something.

one word: prenuptual

Yep. If you don’t get one, don’t complain.

Well we don't know that he said did nothing. From what I can gather they were married before all the riches came, she probably gave him a lot of support in getting there. And as has already been pointed out, they were married for 20 years - which is quite something.


Well okay how about in the general case where the spouse with less money does nothing and they're married for a long time. Why are they entitled to 50% of the money?

Yeah i never understood that either. It seems to be taken for granted that whatever the spouse with the lesser amount of money does during the marriage they are entitled to half of the combined estate when they split up and no-one ever questions it. Someone care to explain it? Obviously she didnt get half in this case, but it was still a hell of a lot for doing nothing.

Indeed, a hell of a lot for cheating. Now, we don't know what the specifics are, but if you're the one who does the thing which cements the divorce, you're sure as hell not entitled to tens of millions of dollars.

Well okay how about in the general case where the spouse with less money does nothing and they're married for a long time. Why are they entitled to 50% of the money?

Well he/she obviously married he/she for a reason...

Fuck em.
Nobody deserves that much money anyway.
Hope they all die of syphilis.

Indeed, a hell of a lot for cheating. Now, we don't know what the specifics are, but if you're the one who does the thing which cements the divorce, you're sure as hell not entitled to tens of millions of dollars.

Adultery, it is often said, does not cause a marriage to break down, but rather is caused by the break down of a marriage. I don't know how true that is in terms of this particular case, but certainly we don't know all the specifics like you say. And because of this, I find it hard to make resonable judgement.

.


Snip

cause it isnt the point I am addressing



Again, I am not speaking about this case at all. I am also not speaking of the legal contractial aspects of marriage.

I am simply asking a question.

2 hypothetical cases

a man and a women get together while young and get married. The man works hard trying to earn money while the woman uses this money to take care of their house(starts with an apt then a small then larger ect) and raise their family. It the begining they struggle but like most families they progress in life as time moves on. Better house, better schools, more stability ect. At some point the get divorced.

Should they split whatever assets they have equally?..absolutely.

Another case

Guy marries girl, guy is already pretty well off. Girl sole jo in life is..nothing. she occupies herself(while her husband is working) by throwing parties and shopping. He provides enough money to have housekeepers and nannies to take care of cooking cleaning and the kids ect After time this couples fortunes rise. From being well off they become extremely well off. At some point this couple gets divorced.

Should they split their assets equally?..I dont think so. I see no justice there. Do you?

You can replace guy with girl whereever you please, It isnt a one way thing.

Yeah i never understood that either. It seems to be taken for granted that whatever the spouse with the lesser amount of money does during the marriage they are entitled to half of the combined estate when they split up and no-one ever questions it. Someone care to explain it? Obviously she didnt get half in this case, but it was still a hell of a lot for doing nothing.

Fine, before you get married make your spouse sign a contract saying you get to keep what you earn and your spouse keeps what he/she earns. Make clear what is your is yours. Should be a delightful marriage.

Marriage is a partnership. Try going into a partnership in business. Unless you specify otherwise, everything is generally 50/50 -- profits, losses, assets, whatever.

When you get married you agree to the terms of state law, which broadly speaking mean you share and share alike.

Fine, before you get married make your spouse sign a contract saying you get to keep what you earn and your spouse keeps what he/she earns. Make clear what is your is yours. Should be a delightful marriage.

Marriage is a partnership. Try going into a partnership in business. Unless you specify otherwise, everything is generally 50/50 -- profits, losses, assets, whatever.

When you get married you agree to the terms of state law, which broadly speaking mean you share and share alike.

Absolutely, I think you are quite right.

Again, I am not speaking about this case at all. I am also not speaking of the legal contractial aspects of marriage.

I am simply asking a question.

2 hypothetical cases

a man and a women get together while young and get married. The man works hard trying to earn money while the woman uses this money to take care of their house(starts with an apt then a small then larger ect) and raise their family. It the begining they struggle but like most families they progress in life as time moves on. Better house, better schools, more stability ect. At some point the get divorced.

Should they split whatever assets they have equally?..absolutely.

Another case

Guy marries girl, guy is already pretty well off. Girl sole jo in life is..nothing. she occupies herself(while her husband is working) by throwing parties and shopping. He provides enough money to have housekeepers and nannies to take care of cooking cleaning and the kids ect After time this couples fortunes rise. From being well off they become extremely well off. At some point this couple gets divorced.

Should they split their assets equally?..I dont think so. I see no justice there. Do you?

You can replace guy with girl whereever you please, It isnt a one way thing.

Its sort of silly to ask questions about the law and not expect an answer about the law.

You don't want to hear the logical answer -- they should split their assets equally because that is what he wanted when he married her under those terms.

Your hypothetical seems to assume the marriage itself is unfair and the divorce should reflect that judgment of yours. Why?

As I've tried to say, the same is true if your man went into a partnership with someone. Your man works hard and brings in the big bucks. The other partner does jag all. They still split the profits 50/50. If your man thinks that is unfair, he shouldn't agree to it.

Its sort of silly to ask questions about the law and not expect an answer about the law.

You don't want to hear the logical answer -- they should split their assets equally because that is what he wanted when he married her under those terms.

Your hypothetical seems to assume the marriage itself is unfair and the divorce should reflect that judgment of yours. Why?

As I've tried to say, the same is true if your man went into a partnership with someone. Your man works hard and brings in the big bucks. The other partner does jag all. They still split the profits 50/50. If your man thinks that is unfair, he shouldn't agree to it.

The reason I am not making this a point of law is that it changes based upon what state you are in. It also changes based upon what country you are in.

Yes I could sit here and argue the advantages/disdvantagea of being married in one state or one country or another.

But that would be kinda silly, that is why I am trying to bring up adiscussion on what is (IMHO) just or not.

Like I said before, I am not trying to argue the merits of one contract or another. Though, different places interpret the same(essentially) contract differently depending upon where it is enforced.

Edit:

given your posts in other threads, I can understand why this would be the case(eg sidestepping what is right and wrong..or at least why you dont look at metters that way).

It seems fair to me. After all it was a twenty plus year marriage during which he/they accumulated millions.

What do people expect, that she should now go on welfare? Stop being so puritan.

United States+Law=Oxymoronic

2 girls were sued for giving cookies to another girl. The girl wasnt allergic
1 boy sued school for giving him summer homework required for entering honor courses

1st case the plantiff won

2nd case is going to court

Search google Girls sued for giving cookies
search google Boy sued school for giving him summer homework

Im sure he has enough cash left over that his life would be better off without the headache

Exactly.

The reason I am not making this a point of law is that it changes based upon what state you are in. It also changes based upon what country you are in.

Yes I could sit here and argue the advantages/disdvantagea of being married in one state or one country or another.

But that would be kinda silly, that is why I am trying to bring up adiscussion on what is (IMHO) just or not.

Like I said before, I am not trying to argue the merits of one contract or another. Though, different places interpret the same(essentially) contract differently depending upon where it is enforced.

Edit:

given your posts in other threads, I can understand why this would be the case(eg sidestepping what is right and wrong..or at least why you dont look at metters that way).

<sigh>

Just because I am not a Puritan does not mean I don't look at things as right and wrong.

I don't think marriage is a competive exercise. I don't think it about hoarding "my stuff" and "your stuff." I think it is wrong to view it that way.

I also think it is wrong to judge other peoples' marriages and say -- that situation is lopsided, he should get more for the money he is putting in.

Marriage is a partnership in every sense of the word. What happens when a marriage disolves isn't about who is right or wrong -- you are right that laws vary from state to state, in many states "fault" doesn't effect distribution of wealth at all, Connecticut does -- it is about fairly dividing the marital assests. Not "his" assets. The marital assests.

I don't think the division of assets equally in your hypothetical is wrong. I think it is right. It is right because the division shouldn't depend on an economic measurement of who contributed what. Your ledger-based view of marriage is wrong.

(And, a spouse is not the other spouse's property. If one has an affair, get a divorce, fine. But no punishment is necessary. Nobody needs to wear a big letter "A.")

Is that clear enough on right and wrong for you?

And, one more point about the law. What I've said is generally true in every state. To the extent it isn't, its because community property states are even more strictly 50/50 than I've said.

(And, a spouse is not the other spouse's property. If one has an affair, get a divorce, fine. But no punishment is necessary. Nobody needs to wear a big letter "A.")

to the scaffold with you

For me it's not about percentages or anything else it's just the seeming lack of karmic justice when someone cheats on their husband with two different people after being together for 20 years and then gets paid $40 million dollars for it!

Although as others have mentioned, he may have had it coming.

For me it's not about percentages or anything else it's just the seeming lack of karmic justice when someone cheats on their husband with two different people after being together for 20 years and then gets paid $40 million dollars for it!

Although as others have mentioned, he may have had it coming.

Ms. Sosin did not "get[] paid" $40 million dollars. Of the about $170 million that belonged to her and Ms. Sosin, she gets only the $40 million. Because he filed divorce based on her actions, she lost access to the entire $170 million and lost about $40 million to which she normally would have been entitled.

So, depending on how you look at her actions cost her: a marriage, as much as $130 million, and at least $40 million.

Is $40 million -- and now international scorn -- a sufficient "fine" or karmic penalty for an affair? Or should she be whipped too?

Ms. Sosin did not "get[] paid" $40 million dollars. Of the about $170 million that belonged to her and Ms. Sosin, she gets only the $40 million. Because he filed divorce based on her actions, she lost access to the entire $170 million and lost about $40 million to which she normally would have been entitled.

So, depending on how you look at her actions cost her: a marriage, as much as $130 million, and at least $40 million.

Is $40 million -- and now international scorn -- a sufficient "fine" or karmic penalty for an affair? Or should she be whipped too?

The problem is that you feel she is entitled to anything at all. She did almost nothng to create the wealth and consquently has no right nor claim to any of it. The current legal system be damned to hell.

you have no idea what she did or did not do to contribute to that estate.

you have no idea what she did or did not do to contribute to that estate.


Howard Sosin served as the president and chief operating officer of AIG Financial Products until 1993 when he left the company. Following litigation, he received $182 million from AIG. Can I assume it wasn't $40 million?

Can I assume it wasn't $40 million?
no you cant

there is much more to an estate than the salaries of those involved.

Can I assume it wasn't $40 million?

Not without making an ass out of you and me...

Seriously though, you can't assume. You don't know anything about this couple, or who contributed what. For example, if she was 'trophy wife' type, her attendance at social functions and the likes might have helped her husband in so many ways... or she may have given him the emotional support to get to the top. Who knows? You sure as hell don't.

edit: And don't forget that she probably brought up his kids and took charge of family affairs while he was away on business. The worth of that contribution shouldn't be underestimated.

you have no idea what she did or did not do to contribute to that estate.

I do. It was half. That is the law in most states.

It probably won't suprise you that this bothers me not at all.

I can't find how long they were married, but they met in 1978 (ironically, when she was married to someone else). It appears safe to assume they were married at least 20 years.

Their estate -- that bears repeating their estate -- was worth over $168 million. She recieved 27%. She lost over $40 million dollars due to her "misbehavior." She clearly wasn't rewarded.

This is typical media sensationalism. Completely unbalanced, going for shock value.

Ok, you seated?

I AGREE with you... for the most part.

While I agree with your assessment of the situation, I disagree with your assessment of the Media. I read the entire article and believe they represented the case in a fair and unbiased manner.

While the Headline of the article may seem to suggest otherwise, I believe they just gave you the facts and leave you to assess it on your own.

But that's just me...

And again, I agree entirely with your assessment of the situation itself.

Regards,
Gaar

The problem is that you feel she is entitled to anything at all. She did almost nothng to create the wealth and consquently has no right nor claim to any of it. The current legal system be damned to hell.

It has been said so many times in this thread, and I'm getting sick of repeating it like a broken record, neither you nor anybody else here has a clue what kind of relationship they had going and who contributed what... as Ashmoria says, it's more than just estate and salaries.

It takes a lot to get to the top a multi-million dollar corporation, and Ms. Sosin, for all we know, could have provided the emotional support for her husband to have done so... I don't know, and neither do you.

I'm finding it hard to feel sorry for a woman who is left with $40 million dollars and two lovers after betraying a husband who is left with no-one.

The problem is that you feel she is entitled to anything at all. She did almost nothng to create the wealth and consquently has no right nor claim to any of it. The current legal system be damned to hell.


Legal system aside, the purpose of marriage is not to "create [] wealth." As I have said, it is a partnership. You don't keep a ledger during marriage of who contributes what. I certainly hope marriage isn't treated like a competitive excercise with each spouse seeking maximum gain in case of divorce.

The Sosins were married for 25 years. They started out broke. They had 3 children. Regardless of the economic value, Ms. Sosin contributed to the marriage. Until he learned of the infidelity, Mr. Sosin appears to have been contented with Ms. Sosin's contribution -- for 23 years.

Now, you appear to say she gets kicked to the curb without any share of the family assets. What a lovely view of marriage.

Would you feel the same about any divorce - regardless of fault? Or do you just want to punish adulterers?

BTW, I finally found some more information about the case -- stuff not punchy enough for the media whores: Adultery, Acrimony And Millions In Spoils (http://www.courant.com/hc-divorce0325.artmar25,0,4568934.story)

Gee, marriage is a legal institution.

When you get married you are essentially signing a contract. You agree to a certain comingling of assests. The terms vary by state. But as a general rule -- all your base belong to us. Everything belongs to both unless specifically provided as separate (depending on what state you are in this may or may not be possible).

As to "what was her contribution," it depends. But it was whatever he agreed to. :D Sometimes it is child-raising or homemaking. Sometimes its to be a trophy or a political ally. Sometimes its sex. I'm not going to speculate further.

In Connecticut, where they got divorced, the following applies (according to this website (http://www.smith-lawfirm.com/divorce_primer.html) which I corroborated):

Connecticut is referred to as an "all property equitable distribution state." In Connecticut, the Court has the power to "assign to either the husband or wife all or any part of the estate of the other." Conn. Gen. Stats. § 46b-81. Any property, therefore, regardless of when or how acquired, can be re-distributed by the Court. See, e.g. North v. North, 183 Conn. 35 (1981) (all property, including pre-marital or inherited property, is subject to division by the court). The statute "does not limit, either by timing or method of acquisition or by source of funds, the property subject to a trial court's broad power [to allocate]." Lopiano v. Lopiano, 247 Conn. 356, 364 (1998).

In making the allocation, the factors the Court will consider are: the length of the marriage, the causes of the dissolution or separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities, special needs, future earning capacity and prospect for future acquisition of capital assets and income. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81.

The court also considers the contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation of the assets. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-81. Homemaking is considered a valuable contribution to the acquisition and appreciation of assets.

Property acquired prior to the marriage is often, but not always, considered the separate property of the person who acquired it. Appreciations or additions to that property may be considered marital acquisitions.

In the Sosin case, we don't have a lot of facts, so we don't know much of the factors involved. This went to trial and the judge decided she got 27%. Without knowing more details, seems vaguely fair. Regardless, I am sure either side that is unhappy (probably both) will appeal.

This is one of the many reasons why romantic notions of marriage shouldn't lead anyone to rush to altar. Marriage is a contract. Read the fine print.


Damn Straight!

I'm finding it hard to feel sorry for a woman who is left with $40 million dollars and two lovers after betraying a husband who is left with no-one.

Don't worry, with that kind of change, I'm sure he can find a little sympathy from someone or other...

I'm finding it hard to feel sorry for a woman who is left with $40 million dollars and two lovers after betraying a husband who is left with no-one.

*Yawn.* Considering you don't know anything about the woman, other than her name and the fact that she's divorced with $40 million, she could well be a good person who made a stupid mistake and may even regret it *shrug*... again we don't know. For all we know, he may not have been a very good husband, who neglected his wife. We don't know. Any thoughts that come to mind about this woman or her husband are pure speculation.

*Yawn.* Considering you don't know anything about the woman, other than her name and the fact that she's divorced with $40 million, she could well be a good person who made a stupid mistake and may even regret it *shrug*... again we don't know. For all we know, he may not have been a very good husband. Or he could have been a very good one who was stabbed right in the back. We don't know. Any thoughts that come to mind about this woman or her husband are pure speculation.

At the end of the day, it's none of our business anyway.Fair enough :)

(Although to be fair I do know that she cheated on him over a long period of time with two different men. A bit more than an "oops" mistake! But point taken)

Legal system aside, the purpose of marriage is not to "create [] wealth." As I have said, it is a partnership. You don't keep a ledger during marriage of who contributes what. I certainly hope marriage isn't treated like a competitive excercise with each spouse seeking maximum gain in case of divorce.

The Sosins were married for 25 years. They started out broke. They had 3 children. Regardless of the economic value, Ms. Sosin contributed to the marriage. Until he learned of the infidelity, Mr. Sosin appears to have been contented with Ms. Sosin's contribution -- for 23 years.

Now, you appear to say she gets kicked to the curb without any share of the family assets. What a lovely view of marriage.

Would you feel the same about any divorce - regardless of fault? Or do you just want to punish adulterers?

BTW, I finally found some more information about the case -- stuff not punchy enough for the media whores: Adultery, Acrimony And Millions In Spoils (http://www.courant.com/hc-divorce0325.artmar25,0,4568934.story)

I agree with nearly everything you have said, except for the partnership/contract thing. Marriage is neither, it is a legal status. (Which is why pre-nups are of dubious value).

Fair enough :)

(Although to be fair I do know that she cheated on him over a long period of time with two different men. A bit more than an "oops" mistake! But point taken)

Yeah. That's true and all. Reading that link that The Cat-Tribe posted though, it does sound like both parties were at fault too...

Yeah. That's true and all. Reading that link that The Cat-Tribe posted though, it does sound like both parties were at fault too...Yeah. I could make a comment on the severity of too much golf versus long lived multiple cheating, but i'm trying to remember that I took your point :)

Legal system aside, the purpose of marriage is not to "create [] wealth." As I have said, it is a partnership. You don't keep a ledger during marriage of who contributes what. I certainly hope marriage isn't treated like a competitive excercise with each spouse seeking maximum gain in case of divorce.

The Sosins were married for 25 years. They started out broke. They had 3 children. Regardless of the economic value, Ms. Sosin contributed to the marriage. Until he learned of the infidelity, Mr. Sosin appears to have been contented with Ms. Sosin's contribution -- for 23 years.

Now, you appear to say she gets kicked to the curb without any share of the family assets. What a lovely view of marriage.

Would you feel the same about any divorce - regardless of fault? Or do you just want to punish adulterers?

BTW, I finally found some more information about the case -- stuff not punchy enough for the media whores: Adultery, Acrimony And Millions In Spoils (http://www.courant.com/hc-divorce0325.artmar25,0,4568934.story)

Interesting link, and again, I very much liked what you had to say. Entirely in line with my own thoughts.

Yeah. I could make a comment on the severity of too much golf versus long lived multiple cheating, but i'm trying to remember that I took your point :)

lol. Exactly.

I agree with nearly everything you have said, except for the partnership/contract thing. Marriage is neither, it is a legal status. (Which is why pre-nups are of dubious value).

Thank you, and you are technically correct. :)

I was trying to use contract and partnership as analogies/simplifications of the legalities. I already get bashed enough for being overly legalistic. :D

Geez! A lot of you are too quick to judge the woman, but we don't know all the aspects of the case. The judge stated that the infidelity was not the only cause for divorce, but only the last step. Maybe she was tired of him and started looking for another man, maybe he was cheating on her (but using another computer for the emails).

We don't know, so perhaps her award was fair, perhaps it was not.

Geez! A lot of you are too quick to judge the woman, but we don't know all the aspects of the case. The judge stated that the infidelity was not the only cause for divorce, but only the last step. Maybe she was tired of him and started looking for another man, maybe he was cheating on her (but using another computer for the emails).

We don't know, so perhaps her award was fair, perhaps it was not.

Yep. I hate it when people are so quick to judge...

It's completely sickening in my mind. Greed is a basic human vice. Even if he was also cheating on her she is a woman. And a lot of women immediately become aggresive when life bites them. He was a rich man. And how do you take your revenge on a rich man? You cut his wallet in half. And as a woman I feel qualified to make such remarks. It's sick.

United States+Law=Oxymoronic

2 girls were sued for giving cookies to another girl. The girl wasnt allergic
1 boy sued school for giving him summer homework required for entering honor courses

1st case the plantiff won

2nd case is going to court

Search google Girls sued for giving cookies
search google Boy sued school for giving him summer homework

The second case was dismissed from court, and last I read the school system was countersuing the family for incured legal expenses.

BTW, I finally found some more information about the case -- stuff not punchy enough for the media whores: Adultery, Acrimony And Millions In Spoils (http://www.courant.com/hc-divorce0325.artmar25,0,4568934.story)

OMG!!!

I know a David Brooks who lives in Redmond!

Haven't seen him in years...

I need to find out if this is HIM!

:D

Thanks for the link Cat!

Regards,
Gaar

It's completely sickening in my mind. Greed is a basic human vice. Even if he was also cheating on her she is a woman. And a lot of women immediately become aggresive when life bites them. He was a rich man. And how do you take your revenge on a rich man? You cut his wallet in half. And as a woman I feel qualified to make such remarks. It's sick.

In that case, then maybe I, as a male, am qualified to say that a lot of rich men are arrogant pricks who neglect their wives anyway. Then again, maybe I'm not...

It's completely sickening in my mind. Greed is a basic human vice. Even if he was also cheating on her she is a woman. And a lot of women immediately become aggresive when life bites them. He was a rich man. And how do you take your revenge on a rich man? You cut his wallet in half. And as a woman I feel qualified to make such remarks. It's sick.

Your gender does not make you qualified to make such remarks, despite your misguided perceptions.

Your gender does not make you qualified to make such remarks, despite your misguided perceptions.

So I can't say rich men are arrogant pricks, even though I'm a male? Damn. That really bites...

lol :p

Your gender does not make you qualified to make such remarks, despite your misguided perceptions.

Misguided perceptions? Go on...

THis was a bit of an understatement:
"My opinion is her conduct in this matter affected the award," Albrecht said.
I thought it was a bit mean to make the guy hand over a ruby piece that he had bought for her, but hadn't given her because he then found out about the affair.

As for all those 'Only in America' posts, it's just as bad, if not worse elsewhere. Look at that case of that poor footballer who pretty much loses everything:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1105922,00.html
Before anyone says that she is only getting 1/3 of his income - that is before tax. And he has to pay the tax on his whole income, which means he is in effect paying her tax. And when you take that out (and tax in the UK, especially for that much is very high), it means he is left with less than what she's getting. That hardly seems fair to me.

THis was a bit of an understatement:

I thought it was a bit mean to make the guy hand over a ruby piece that he had bought for her, but hadn't given her because he then found out about the affair.

As for all those 'Only in America' posts, it's just as bad, if not worse elsewhere. Look at that case of that poor footballer who pretty much loses everything:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1105922,00.html
Before anyone says that she is only getting 1/3 of his income - that is before tax. And he has to pay the tax on his whole income, which means he is in effect paying her tax. And when you take that out (and tax in the UK, especially for that much is very high), it means he is left with less than what she's getting. That hardly seems fair to me.

Yah, the footballer thing was wrong.

Legal system aside, the purpose of marriage is not to "create [] wealth."

Exactly, it is not the purpose. So wealth should not be redistributed after the marriage either.

As I have said, it is a partnership. You don't keep a ledger during marriage of who contributes what. I certainly hope marriage isn't treated like a competitive excercise with each spouse seeking maximum gain in case of divorce.

And you attempted to use a Business partnership as an example. Where you do keep a ledger and the conditions of the partnership and set up when establish and often times the conditions of a breakup of the partnership is set out when the partnership is established.

And when it comes time for divorce that is exactly how it is seen, as a competitive exercise.

The Sosins were married for 25 years. They started out broke. They had 3 children. Regardless of the economic value, Ms. Sosin contributed to the marriage. Until he learned of the infidelity, Mr. Sosin appears to have been contented with Ms. Sosin's contribution -- for 23 years.

She contributed to a marriage, something you say is not for the creation of wealth. The man founded a company and created his wealth. The Marriage is not as you say about wealth. So why is his wealth redistributed as a result of the marriage?

Now, you appear to say she gets kicked to the curb without any share of the family assets. What a lovely view of marriage.

It is quite nice indeed, seeing it leaves Marriage to Marriage and it leaves wealth to those who created it.

Would you feel the same about any divorce

Yes.