NationStates Jolt Archive

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/?gt1=43001

HARTFORD, Conn. - A 36-year-old Swedish countess divorcing a former CEO says she cannot live on $43 million.

Marie Douglas-David, a former investment banker, says she has no income and needs her 67-year-old husband, George David, to pay her more than $53,000 a week — more than most U.S. households make in a year — to cover her expenses.

$43 Million in 16 years? Seriously, she can spend that fucking much? Nobody needs to live off of $53,000 a week! If I had that kind of money I still wouldn't spend like that, not on frivolous crap like she does.

Questions, opinions, concerns, gripes, groans?

Originally Posted by MSNBC
Marie Douglas-David, a former investment banker, says she has no income and needs her 67-year-old husband, George David, to pay her more than $53,000 a week.

There's your answer.

I want some of her lifestyle...

i call bullshit on her need of money.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/?gt1=43001



$43 Million in 16 years? Seriously, she can spend that fucking much? Nobody needs to live off of $53,000 a week! If I had that kind of money I still wouldn't spend like that, not on frivolous crap like she does.

Questions, opinions, concerns, gripes, groans?

I would happily take 1/10th of that.

this is what we should tax at 90%

I think she should be force to get a job.


Check this out:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/18/marie-douglasdavid-wife-d_n_176604.html

Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $53,800 in weekly expenses, including for maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service, $4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel.

At that rate, Douglas-David would burn through $43 million in less than 16 years. The Census Bureau estimates that the median U.S. household income in 2007 was just over $50,000.

Anne Dranginis, an attorney for David and retired Connecticut Appellate Court judge, predicted that Douglas-David will get much less money in the divorce if she doesn't accept the terms of the postnuptial.

In court papers, Douglas-David said she quit her job as an investment banker for Lazard Asset Management to travel and entertain with David, who still earns $1 million a year from United Technologies. While chief executive in 2007, David made nearly $27 million in salary and bonuses.

Douglas-David's legal team includes prominent New York divorce attorney William Beslow, who represented Mia Farrow in her child-custody suit against actor-director Woody Allen and Marla Maples in her divorce from Donald Trump.

United Technologies is the parent company of Carrier, which makes air conditioning units, and Otis Elevators. It also owns Sikorsky, which makes commercial and military helicopters, and Hamilton Sunstrand, an aerospace manufacturer that makes components for NASA's space program.

David is expected to return to the stand Thursday for several days of testimony

Meh, I think it's totally reasonable, given that the alternative is to allow George David to keep that money. By marrying as he did and enabling his wife's ludicrous lifestyle, he's proven that he's got shit judgment and fuckall for values. If she doesn't get the money then he'll just blow it on another trophy wife. So it won't make much difference.

Where the fuck is Robin Hood when you really need him? :(

Where the fuck is Robin Hood when you really need him? :(

the IRS arrested him for Tax evasion long ago.

Since $43 million is apparently not suitable, maybe we should go with $43 period.

why shouldnt she get half? she was his wife not a whore.

why shouldnt she get half? she was his wife not a whore.

At the rate she was burning through money, and the infidelity on both sides I am prone to respectfully disagree Ashmoria.

At the rate she was burning through money, and the infidelity on both sides I am prone to respectfully disagree Ashmoria.
they were married.

he had money before they got married but she should have half of whatever was gained during their marriage.

they were married.

he had money before they got married but she should have half of whatever was gained during their marriage.

What if she spent all of half the money he made?

why shouldnt she get half? she was his wife not a whore.

That's not what she's asking for. She's asking for half AND all her expenses to be met.

why shouldnt she get half? she was his wife not a whore.

Because she signed a postnuptial agreeing to $43 million if there was a divorce. Unless she can demonstrate that she was forced to sign that under duress as she claims, there's no reason to invalidate the agreement.

I don't think that's the point of the thread, though. In a time where most people are struggling just to make it month to month, to hear about someone with such a powerful disconnect from reality as to believe she needs $53,000 a week is infuriating.

In a time where most people are struggling just to make it month to month, to hear about someone with such a powerful disconnect from reality as to believe she needs $53,000 a week is infuriating.

Bingo. I was just pissed off...

Because she signed a postnuptial agreeing to $43 million if there was a divorce. Unless she can demonstrate that she was forced to sign that under duress as she claims, there's no reason to invalidate the agreement.

I don't think that's the point of the thread, though. In a time where most people are struggling just to make it month to month, to hear about someone with such a powerful disconnect from reality as to believe she needs $53,000 a week is infuriating.
and i see that she should get her due. its not like she is asking for the pennies of orphans. she is asking for the money of a rich man. if she doesnt get it, he does. it will never go to the rest of us.

if she is asking for extra, i doubt that she will get it. i dont think that she should get MORE than half but a postnuptual agreement sounds very breakable to me.

What if she spent all of half the money he made?
if there is nothing that they bought, no addition to their estate since they got married then there is nothing for her to have half of.

I want some of her lifestyle...

You might have to do some acts that you consider demeaning..

You might have to do some acts that you consider demeaning..

Like remove yourself from reality.

and i see that she should get her due. its not like she is asking for the pennies of orphans. she is asking for the money of a rich man. if she doesnt get it, he does. it will never go to the rest of us.

if she is asking for extra, i doubt that she will get it. i dont think that she should get MORE than half but a postnuptual agreement sounds very breakable to me.

If she can prove infidelity, or if she can prove she was forced to sign under duress, then I agree it's probably breakable. If not, then I don't see why the court wouldn't enforce it.

Either way, from how I interpreted the article, she's not just looking for half his money. She's looking for half his money PLUS $53,800 a week in alimony.

And it's not a matter whether us regular people get the money or not. It's the arrogance and conceit of someone to think that they NEED $53,000 a week to survive when most of us are trying to do it on that much a year. I'm sure if we heard about his expenses we'd be infuriated too, but we're not and he's not the one saying that he needs $53,000 a week just to get by.

If she can prove infidelity, or if she can prove she was forced to sign under duress, then I agree it's probably breakable. If not, then I don't see why the court wouldn't enforce it.

Either way, from how I interpreted the article, she's not just looking for half his money. She's looking for half his money PLUS $53,800 a week in alimony.

And it's not a matter whether us regular people get the money or not. It's the arrogance and conceit of someone to think that they NEED $53,000 a week to survive when most of us are trying to do it on that much a year. I'm sure if we heard about his expenses we'd be infuriated too, but we're not and he's not the one saying that he needs $53,000 a week just to get by.
if you have the kind of expenses that the very rich have, you need that kind of money.

the bum on the street might be shocked that *I* think that i couldnt survive without $53,000/year.

Let's see -

She signed an agreement for a fixed amount upon divorce.

She's getting divorced.

She now says that amount is insufficient.


Why did she agree to it in the first place?

Like remove yourself from reality.

Maybe I live in a different world, where no sex is worth that amount of money.

I wonder how much of that income is going up her nose...that might explain why she can't live on less than $53,000 per week.

"Cocaine is God's way of saying that you're making too much money." -Robin Williams

:)

Maybe I live in a different world, where no sex is worth that amount of money.

I was talking about her world. No sex is worth that kind of money and no person needs to spend $53,000 a week, if she honestly believes that she need to spend that much money every single week she is divorced from reality that's what i was saying about removing yourself from reality to have her kind of lifestyle.

Because she signed a postnuptial agreeing to $43 million if there was a divorce. Unless she can demonstrate that she was forced to sign that under duress as she claims, there's no reason to invalidate the agreement.

I don't think that's the point of the thread, though. In a time where most people are struggling just to make it month to month, to hear about someone with such a powerful disconnect from reality as to believe she needs $53,000 a week is infuriating.

This is the key phrase. If she can prove. The agreement would only be override by a judgement if could be proven that it wouldn't support her. However, given the breakdown, that amount is entirely reasonable. The two entered into the agreement as consenting adults.

He likely wanted this to protect his assets because he may have been burnt in the past in this type of proceeding and wanted to protect himself, which is not uncommon when a person has vast assets.

Personal sentiment on her avarice aside, the agreement should in both theory and practice, prevent lengthy court disputes. She was likely in a sound state of mind - i.e.: able to consent and understand what she was signing and not mentally incapable due to intoxication or any form of mental disability or incompetence.

Of course, then there is the issue of her "lessening the quality of her life" because she may have grown accustomed to this life style. But it isn't like she is being forced into poverty or anything less than upper middle class. She may have to do without exceedingly expensive goods, however, by no stretch of the imagination would she 'suffer' to the extent she wants the court to believe.

Now then, if he were to leave her nothing or weasel out of it with a paltry sum that wouldn't withstand a court test then she may have a leg to stand on.

Her basic needs and more would easily be met with this payout.

I don't think that's the point of the thread, though. In a time where most people are struggling just to make it month to month, to hear about someone with such a powerful disconnect from reality as to believe she needs $53,000 a week is infuriating.

Wasn't there some article a while back about how people in Wall Street needed their oh so small six figure bonuses to pay for things like upscale posh condo's nannies for their children, clothes for gala events and so on?

Wasn't there some article a while back about how people in Wall Street needed their oh so small six figure bonuses to pay for things like upscale posh condo's nannies for their children, clothes for gala events and so on?

Yeah, it was about how Wall Street bankers can't survive on the proposed $500,000 salary cap. It's not that they can't survive on that much money, it's that the don't want to survive on that much money. There's nothing that entitles them to continue living that life.

This disgusts me. Since when does someone NEED $53,000 a week to survive?

That woman should thank G-d every day that she can live in the kind of luxury that $43 million would allow her.

My suggestion to her? GET A FRAKKING JOB.

I had to see what the fuss was about over this woman. Well found a pic of her if anyone wants to judge. :p

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2009/03/18/mn-divorce19_ph_0499922420.jpg

Courtesy of Sfgate.com

Come on, they were not married that long... It seems like shes just another gold-digger imo. Not that I have much sympathy for the guy, I never plan to marry for just such reasons.

I had to see what the fuss was about over this woman. Well found a pic of her if anyone wants to judge.
Her yellow tie is terrible.

Her yellow tie is terrible.

Well I wasn't going to say anything however the fat head is a total turnoff.

I had to see what the fuss was about over this woman. Well found a pic of her if anyone wants to judge. :p


What is that horrible thing she is wearing ? The design is.. yuck.

What is that horrible thing she is wearing ? The design is.. yuck.
If we're really talking about the girl, this time, I believe you call her outer garment a 'coat'.

If we're really talking about the girl, this time, I believe you call her outer garment a 'coat'.

Yeah - but she claims to spend $4,500 a week on clothes. The thing she is wearing is so hideously ugly only a blind person would pay that kind of cash on it. $50 tops, if it is very comfortable.

What is that horrible thing she is wearing ? The design is.. yuck.

Don't think having money = having style.

Well, things are expensive here in Sweden...:(

if you have the kind of expenses that the very rich have, you need that kind of money.

the bum on the street might be shocked that *I* think that i couldnt survive without $53,000/year.

Are you kidding me? The kind of expenses the rich have. From what I read that translates to living an opulent lifestyle that you didn't even earn by the way while others are worrying about starving.

Yeah - but she claims to spend $4,500 a week on clothes. The thing she is wearing is so hideously ugly only a blind person would pay that kind of cash on it. $50 tops, if it is very comfortable.
But we can't see the name that's on the label. It's her money, she can spend it any way she choose. That is until Congress gets wind of her 'frivolity' and passes a law that will prevent the money from being spent on 'improper' items.

You might have to do some acts that you consider demeaning..

How demeaning can something be, at a pay scale of $53,000 a week?

Based on a 40 hour week, that's more than $1300 an hour.

For that kind of money, I'll dress like Mickey Mouse, and he can bugger me with a strap-on shaped like Santa Claus, if he wants.

That is until Congress gets wind of her 'frivolity' and passes a law that will prevent the money from being spent on 'improper' items.

I suspect this is another of those oh-so-subtle digs at how it is somehow 'wrong' for government to tax windfalls, or some such.

The problem with ignoring history, is that it means you don't know how these pay inequities usually sorts themselves out.

I suspect this is another of those oh-so-subtle digs at how it is somehow 'wrong' for government to tax windfalls, or some such.

The problem with ignoring history, is that it means you don't know how these pay inequities usually sorts themselves out.
So tell me, oh wise one, how is this inequity going to pan out?

So tell me, oh wise one, how is this inequity going to pan out?

We don't know, do we?

Hopefully, through people in power ignoring the pressure that wealthy petitioners put on them in resistance, and using political and economic means to force some kind of redistribution and greater equity.

But then, there are intellects like Limbaugh shitting their pants about that prospect, and it's possible they'll cry loud enough that the government will hold off a little too long.

And the problem then will be that history repeats itself - and if this kind of inequity is left to right itself, there will be - as there always is - blood.

We don't know, do we?

Hopefully, through people in power ignoring the pressure that wealthy petitioners put on them in resistance, and using political and economic means to force some kind of redistribution and greater equity.

But then, there are intellects like Limbaugh shitting their pants about that prospect, and it's possible they'll cry loud enough that the government will hold off a little too long.

And the problem then will be that history repeats itself - and if this kind of inequity is left to right itself, there will be - as there always is - blood.
This may well end badly, but it will be because of the tyranny of the government, rather than the jealousy of the governed.

It's stories like these that make the proletariat in me turn a deep shade of crimson.. If anything, that list of expenses that she provided should serve as evidence to be presented against her recieving more than the already astronomical sum she is "entitled" to.. $4,500 a week for clothes? $1,000 a week for hair/skin treatments? $8,000 a week for travel expenses (on top of the $700 weekly limo bill)??

This barren hack needs to get a serious reality cheque.

This may well end badly, but it will be because of the tyranny of the government, rather than the jealousy of the governed.

Yes, such terrible tyranny we're living under, right now...

Jealousy? I'm assuming it was supposed to be funny.

There may well be blood, but it will be because a rich elite living in ivory towers while a 'second-class' starves is a narrative that always ends the same way. And, I'm not a big fan of bloody revolution - which is why I hope that a peace is found some other way.

Are you kidding me? The kind of expenses the rich have. From what I read that translates to living an opulent lifestyle that you didn't even earn by the way while others are worrying about starving.
yes but you have to think about her husband's $350 million (or whatever it was) does HE deserve a 300/43 split?

Where the fuck is Robin Hood when you really need him? :(
His job has been outsourced to Korea and to a woman :eek2:

http://images.beijing2008.cn/20070509/Img214070746.jpg

why shouldnt she get half? she was his wife not a whore.

You can be both. All the cool kids are doing it in hedgefundistan these days. (Tho' admittedly this guy was not in the funds industry).

He should have someone 'disappear' her. It would be very much cheaper.

But we can't see the name that's on the label. It's her money, she can spend it any way she choose. That is until Congress gets wind of her 'frivolity' and passes a law that will prevent the money from being spent on 'improper' items.

Are you saying she is a recipient of TARP money?

I think people do not understand the purpose of the salary cap.

But we can't see the name that's on the label. It's her money, she can spend it any way she choose. That is until Congress gets wind of her 'frivolity' and passes a law that will prevent the money from being spent on 'improper' items.

To be fair, it is her husband's money.

Really though, at most she should be entitled to half of the money made during their marriage. Not half of what he is worth. (Assuming that the postnup isn't valid).

All the stuff he made before her is his. She has no claim on that.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/?gt1=43001



$43 Million in 16 years? Seriously, she can spend that fucking much? Nobody needs to live off of $53,000 a week! If I had that kind of money I still wouldn't spend like that, not on frivolous crap like she does.

Questions, opinions, concerns, gripes, groans?

Just remember boys, Pre-nup. There's no shortage of gold diggers. Of course whores are cheaper, and so much more discreet.

yes but you have to think about her husband's $350 million (or whatever it was) does HE deserve a 300/43 split?

Yes, he does, because he was smart enough to have her sign a pre-nup.

Yes, he does, because he was smart enough to have her sign a pre-nup.
its a post-nup and i doubt it will stand up.

its a post-nup and i doubt it will stand up.

and that depends on their lawyers...

and that depends on their lawyers...
and how well she comes off in court.

its a post-nup and i doubt it will stand up.

Actually, it can stand up. It's often taken into account when the judge is to make his order. If the post-nup (or pre-nup) meets the standards set by law, even if it appears that she is getting less, the contract will stand because it would have been deemed to be made in private between two consenting adults who are aware of the consequences.

Actually, it can stand up. It's often taken into account when the judge is to make his order. If the post-nup (or pre-nup) meets the standards set by law, even if it appears that she is getting less, the contract will stand because it would have been deemed to be made in private between two consenting adults who are aware of the consequences.
yeah but her suit would seem to have a bit of an advantage since there is no good reason for her to have signed it without some kind of coercion.

prenups make sense. i wouldnt sign one but i see the reasons for having them. post nup means that she gave away rights because....?

of course it CAN hold up.

and it could be that she doesnt reasonably qualify to get more than $43million because of lack of increase in assets over the life of the marriage.

and, as is mentioned in the link in the OP, she could end up with much less if it is nullified and she comes off badly in court. if the judge thinks she is a vile tramp then she could get far less than $43million.

AND

in this economy, the husbands $329million might now be worth $100million and she would get far more money if she took the postnup amount.

why shouldnt she get half? she was his wife not a whore.

Exactly, she's a woman.

There's no way she could ever live without a man to support her.

Link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/?gt1=43001



$43 Million in 16 years? Seriously, she can spend that fucking much? Nobody needs to live off of $53,000 a week! If I had that kind of money I still wouldn't spend like that, not on frivolous crap like she does.

Questions, opinions, concerns, gripes, groans?

Oh, for fuck's sake. I'm horrible with money, but even I wouldn't do that! (and I almost never have any cause I'm too young to work)

Exactly, she's a woman.

There's no way she could ever live without a man to support her.
* smells smoke......looks for fire

Exactly, she's a woman.

There's no way she could ever live without a man to support her.
Well, not after she quit her job to help him entertain clients and his friends...

...according to the article, she quit her job for him.

Well, not after she quit her job to help him entertain clients and his friends...

...according to the article, she quit her job for him.

Thus she obviously deserves $53k a month

Thus she obviously deserves $53k a month

Maybe this is her projected income if she had stayed at her job?

I'm not saying that she should get this much money. I'm just saying that the comment "she's a woman, she needs a man to survive" is not really warranted since there is the issue that she did leave her job for him.

Where the fuck is Robin Hood when you really need him? :(

He was blacklisted as a Communist.

You know, we could just kill both of them and give everybody a $2 tax refund.

Well, not after she quit her job to help him entertain clients and his friends...

...according to the article, she quit her job for him.

But did he ask her to quit her job and take on that role? Or did she do it on her own? The article doesn't specify.

Thus she obviously deserves $53k a month

But that's only 25% of what she needs in order to survive. Don't you know that rich people have inferior bodies to poor people. Poor people can survive on welfare and donations while rich people would literally die without a steady diet of caviar and lobster. They require the nutrition found in gold as they are not as hardy as the poor. Hell, even the middle class have superior bodies.

i call bullshit on her need of money.

Only too true. She's just a money-hungry whore who's lost her best client ever.


Amid a series of reconciliations, the couple signed a postnuptial agreement in October 2005 that would give her $43 million when they divorce.
Douglas-David wants the agreement invalidated. She accused her husband of coercing her to sign it by preying upon her fears of being divorced and childless.
David is asking a judge to uphold the agreement. His attorneys asked for a separate hearing Wednesday on the document's validity, but the judge declined.
Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $53,800 in weekly expenses, including for maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service, $4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel.


$1500 restaurants and entertainment - hardly a need...

and above everything else:

1000$ hair and skin treatments a week? She must be a zombie given the amount of care she has to take!

Only too true. She's just a money-hungry whore who's lost her best client ever.



$1500 restaurants and entertainment - hardly a need...

and above everything else:

1000$ hair and skin treatments a week? She must be a zombie given the amount of care she has to take!

She's a vampire. The $1,000 a week is to keep her from looking and smelling like a blood filled corpse; however her habits are proof enough of her true nature.

Exactly, she's a woman.

There's no way she could ever live without a man to support her.
thats not the point. they are married.

if it were "her" $329million HE would deserve half. or at least half of whatever was accumulated during the marriage. that is how marriage works.

thats not the point. they are married.

if it were "her" $329million HE would deserve half. or at least half of whatever was accumulated during the marriage. that is how marriage works.

I don't care that she wants half, I care that she can spend that much or more in just 16 years because of her over the top lifestyle and expenses and actually BELIEVES that she can't survive on less.

I don't care that she wants half, I care that she can spend that much or more in just 16 years because of her over the top lifestyle and expenses and actually BELIEVES that she can't survive on less.
filing it that way doesnt mean that she really believes it.

filing it that way doesnt mean that she really believes it.

Maybe she doesn't actually believe it, which makes her even worse for lying. Its bad either way.

Maybe she doesn't actually believe it, which makes her even worse for lying. Its bad either way.
its court. its what you have to do. she outlined how she has been spending money during the marriage. its part of that "lifestyle to which she is accustomed" thing.

she, like anyone else, will live on whatever amount of money she has after the divorce. the question is what is FAIR when she is divorcing an extremely rich man.

if you got divorced and only had $100, would it be fair if your ex got $90 of it? wouldnt you want to get your $50? the huge numbers distract you from the reality that she (may be) getting far less than what is fair between the 2 of them. why SHOULD she get less than half of whatever they accumulated during the marriage?

its court. its what you have to do. she outlined how she has been spending money during the marriage. its part of that "lifestyle to which she is accustomed" thing.

she, like anyone else, will live on whatever amount of money she has after the divorce. the question is what is FAIR when she is divorcing an extremely rich man.

if you got divorced and only had $100, would it be fair if your ex got $90 of it? wouldnt you want to get your $50? the huge numbers distract you from the reality that she (may be) getting far less than what is fair between the 2 of them. why SHOULD she get less than half of whatever they accumulated during the marriage?

Because she already said $43 million was perfectly fine.

Because she already said $43 million was perfectly fine.

If she doesn't want the 43 million, we can split it amongst ourselves.

If she doesn't want the 43 million, we can split it amongst ourselves.

Communist! You just give it all to me! :D

Because she already said $43 million was perfectly fine.
yeah. well. the judge will decide whether or not that was coercion. if she has a good lawyer it will get thrown out.

although i do suspect that its the better financial decision to take the $43mil and run.

yeah. well. the judge will decide whether or not that was coercion. if she has a good lawyer it will get thrown out.

although i do suspect that its the better financial decision to take the $43mil and run.

Yeah.

its court. its what you have to do. she outlined how she has been spending money during the marriage. its part of that "lifestyle to which she is accustomed" thing.

she, like anyone else, will live on whatever amount of money she has after the divorce. the question is what is FAIR when she is divorcing an extremely rich man.

if you got divorced and only had $100, would it be fair if your ex got $90 of it? wouldnt you want to get your $50? the huge numbers distract you from the reality that she (may be) getting far less than what is fair between the 2 of them. why SHOULD she get less than half of whatever they accumulated during the marriage?

Because, as has been referred to numerous, numerous times in this thread, she signed a legally-binding document agreeing to a $43 million settlement if this situation ever occurred. To have that document invalidated will require that she prove that she was coerced into signing it. Saying, "there is no good reason for her to have signed it without some kind of coercion" is hardly sufficient. She will have to demonstrate that she was either forced to sign it against her will and better judgement, or that she was not of sound mind when she signed it. Of course it doesn't make sense that she would sign it (unless she knew she was cheating on him and could potentially not get a dime in the case of proven adultery), but it not making sense is not enough to invalidate a legal document.

Because, as has been referred to numerous, numerous times in this thread, she signed a legally-binding document agreeing to a $43 million settlement if this situation ever occurred. To have that document invalidated will require that she prove that she was coerced into signing it. Saying, "there is no good reason for her to have signed it without some kind of coercion" is hardly sufficient. She will have to demonstrate that she was either forced to sign it against her will and better judgement, or that she was not of sound mind when she signed it. Of course it doesn't make sense that she would sign it (unless she knew she was cheating on him and could potentially not get a dime in the case of proven adultery), but it not making sense is not enough to invalidate a legal document.
it not making sense CAN be a reason to invalidate a legal document.

but we havent seen it so we dont know.

thats not the point. they are married.

if it were "her" $329million HE would deserve half. or at least half of whatever was accumulated during the marriage. that is how marriage works.

If, however, he signed an agreement that he would only get $43 million of that, and then later said that he "can't survive on only $43 million" and tried to get it invalidated because he wants more money and can't live on only $43 million, I would still reserve the right to call him an asshole.

If, however, he signed an agreement that he would only get $43 million of that, and then later said that he "can't survive on only $43 million" and tried to get it invalidated because he wants more money and can't live on only $43 million, I would still reserve the right to call him an asshole.
and she may be an asshole herself.

but you cant tell that by her asking for a different settlement.

A plague on both their houses.
I hate the Ameican obsession with alimony,palinony and pre-nups.

Neurotic rich bastards and their shitty lifestyles disgust me.

And American Capitalism with its army of legislators and lawyers reared these two little piglets.