`Would you turn down $974.8 Million?`

[LongTermGuy]

`This woman did......One check.....immediate cash....`


http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/07/angry-divorcee-refuses-74m-check-from-billionaire-oil-tycoon/



*********************

`Admit it: there is a level where this just becomes stupid and selfish........`



http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./876/493/checke344.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

[LongTermGuy]

http://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/hamm-appeal_.jpg?w=720&h=480&crop=1
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6wXXu8IMAAo1fw.jpg

[Bilgerat]

https://38.media.tumblr.com/cf07ebeef7eee30e3a429a87b4c94e59/tumblr_n32lubZdxy1qlmu8mo1_500.gif

[LongTermGuy]

what do you want to do with your Life?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwrg0db_zY#t=94I wanna Rock

[Jeff]

I saw this and couldn't believe it, this woman can't possibly be needing more than that she is just being a vindictive Bi*** and it would serve her right if the judge told her now she gets nothing :laugh:

[Jeff]

what do you want to do with your Life?





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRwrg0db_zY#t=94I wanna Rock

I use to love that song back in the day, but even back then I couldn't look at how stupid Dee Snyder looked. :laugh:

[fj1200]

`Admit it: there is a level where this just becomes stupid and selfish........`

Which party is selfish?


... she is just being a vindictive Bi***

Which party is vindictive?


... $13.5 billion fortune.

[sundaydriver]

Let's see, accept <1/13 of assets after 26 years of marriage...HELL NO!

I read now that the check has been deposited. Wonder if that's it now?

[Jeff]

Which party is selfish?



Which party is vindictive?

The way I understand it is HE was oil tycoon who made millions ( billions ), is she entitled after 26 years of marriage absolutely, But you know and I know that check would of set her and the next how ever many generations up for life, yes she does deserve but greedy is greedy.

[sundaydriver]

The way I understand it is HE was oil tycoon who made millions ( billions ), is she entitled after 26 years of marriage absolutely, But you know and I know that check would of set her and the next how ever many generations up for life, yes she does deserve but greedy is greedy.

Jeff, what you aren't taking into account is that there are ~1600 people worth a billion bucks in the world. She just doesn't want to have to lower her lifestyle and live like them.:laugh:

[LongTermGuy]

The way I understand it is HE was oil tycoon who made millions ( billions ), is she entitled after 26 years of marriage absolutely, But you know and I know that check would of set her and the next how ever many generations up for life, yes she does deserve but greedy is greedy.


`Thats the way I understand it....

[LongTermGuy]

Which party is selfish?



Which party is vindictive?


`This woman did......One check.....immediate cash....`

*Read the article and decide `for yourself`

My opinion>.......the old man gave her plenty of money / property which HE EARNED...and for her to be set for life...many lifetimes ...and for her to just move on...

[fj1200]

The way I understand it is HE was oil tycoon who made millions ( billions ), is she entitled after 26 years of marriage absolutely, But you know and I know that check would of set her and the next how ever many generations up for life, yes she does deserve but greedy is greedy.

And the more greedy in this case appears to be the husband.


`This woman did......One check.....immediate cash....`

*Read the article and decide `for yourself`

My opinion>.......the old man gave her plenty of money / property which HE EARNED...and for her to be set for life...many lifetimes ...and for her to just move on...

I did decide for myself, I don't particularly care about the problems of billionaires though I do note that your logic is faulty. Your logic is she should take the money and shut up because she didn't do anything.

[Bilgerat]

Your logic is she should take the money and shut up because she didn't do anything.

Please do elucidate on how SHE earned the monies?

Using your logic, it would seem that the lovely Gisele Caroline Bündchen would make a wonderful Quarterback

[LongTermGuy]

And the more greedy in this case appears to be the husband.



I did decide for myself, I don't particularly care about the problems of billionaires though I do note that your logic is faulty. Your logic is she should take the money and shut up because she didn't do anything.


*and your logic doesn't make sense....how much is enough..Your logic is to crucify the guy and let her take it all....I feel she received a fair amount of cash and property...way more than enough....and they both should move on...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Which party is selfish?



Which party is vindictive?

If ya have to ask....... :slap:

Tell me exactly what she did to deserve half of the wealth, the company, that he already had when he met her.
At 26 years of marriage, she was getting in that check almost 30 million a year for each and every year of her time in marriage!
Really, really--that isn't enough!!!!!!


So yes, she is the epitome of a selfish, greedy biatch IMHO..
I ran this by my wife and all four of my sisters--they all agree with my judgment.
And they all usually vigorously defend the rights of women.--Tyr

[fj1200]

Please do elucidate on how SHE earned the monies?

Using your logic, it would seem that the lovely Gisele Caroline Bündchen would make a wonderful Quarterback

Actually my logic makes sense and is based on divorce law and not the legal argument of "shutup B*!" Besides, the question isn't "earning" it's marital property. I think he's lucky he's not in a Community Property State.


It is also very important for you to know if you reside in a Community Property State or an Equitable Distribution State. There are nine Community Property States – Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Community Property states consider both spouses as equal owners of all marital property (a 50-50 split is the rule).The remaining 41 states are Equitable Distribution states. Settlements in Equitable Distribution States do not need to be equal, but they should be fair and equitable. In Equitable Distribution, several factors are taken into account, including the financial situation of each spouse when dividing assets.
Some of the factors considered are:


The length of the marriage
The income or property brought into the marriage by each spouse
The standard of living established during the marriage
The age and physical/emotional health of each spouse
The income and earning potential of each spouse
The financial situation of each spouse when the divorce is finalized
The contribution of a spouse to the education, training or earning power of the other
The needs of the custodial parent to maintain the lifestyle for the children

In addition to these, a court can consider any other factors that it feels might be relevant. This makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to predict the outcome. The bottom line here is that, if possible, you want to stay out of court. There’s a good reason why more than 95% of all divorces are ultimately settled out of court.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/04/12/understanding-how-assets-get-divided-in-divorce/2/

More specific to Oklahoma:


Property and Debts
The court can divide most of the property that you and your spouse acquired during the marriage, regardless of whose name it is in. If you and your spouse are not able to agree on how to divide your savings, furniture, cars, house, and other property, the court will make that decision. The court can also return any separate property to its owner. Separate property is property either of you owned before you got married, or that you received during the marriage by gift or inheritance. The court will also divide the various debts of the marriage.
http://oklaw.org/resource/divorce?ref=PdQ8l

Of course Gisele has different talents.


*and your logic doesn't make sense....how much is enough..Your logic is to crucify the guy and let her take it all....I feel she received a fair amount of cash and property...way more than enough....and they both should move on...

See above for my logic, it's called the rule of law. Please point out where I "logically wanted to crucify the guy." Because I can point out where she was called greedy and selfish... among other things.

[fj1200]

If ya have to ask....... :slap:

Tell me exactly what she did to deserve half of the wealth, the company, that he already had when he met her.
At 26 years of marriage, she was getting in that check almost 30 million a year for each and every year of her time in marriage!
Really, really--that isn't enough!!!!!!


So yes, she is the epitome of a selfish, greedy biatch IMHO..
I ran this by my wife and all four of my sisters--they all agree with my judgment.
And they all usually vigorously defend the rights of women.--Tyr

Why don't you try knocking some zeros off a hypothetical and see if you get the same reaction. But you could also couch the question in law and not your feelings; we are a country of laws correct? I also think you don't understand how much money he did have when they were married. He was drilling dry wells 4 years before getting married to her. I'm pretty sure he wasn't a multi-billionaire when they met.

But you can certainly take the "biatch" side of the argument. Classy.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

If ya have to ask.......

Tell me exactly what she did to deserve half of the wealth, the company, that he already had when he met her.
At 26 years of marriage, she was getting in that check almost 30 million a year for each and every year of her time in marriage!
Really, really--that isn't enough!!!!!!



So yes, she is the epitome of a selfish, greedy biatch IMHO..
I ran this by my wife and all four of my sisters--they all agree with my judgment.
And they all usually vigorously defend the rights of women.--Tyr








Classy.

Thanks!!!! :beer:--Tyr

[SassyLady]

The way I understand it is HE was oil tycoon who made millions ( billions ), is she entitled after 26 years of marriage absolutely, But you know and I know that check would of set her and the next how ever many generations up for life, yes she does deserve but greedy is greedy.

Looks like he is the one being greedy by wanting to keep the majority of their assets for himself (and probably a new woman in his life).

[SassyLady]

With the rapid drop in oil prices she might consider keeping the check. I hear he is appealing the divorce decree in order to pay less.

At any rate, it's a lot of money and I have no conceivable idea how people can reasonably spend that type of money on a lifestyle. Just boggles the mind.

[Jeff]

With the rapid drop in oil prices she might consider keeping the check. I hear he is appealing the divorce decree in order to pay less.

At any rate, it's a lot of money and I have no conceivable idea how people can reasonably spend that type of money on a lifestyle. Just boggles the mind.

My point is this, she will never spend the money she was offered, if it had been him offered that money I would say the same exact thing, I am not even thinking of who made the money or what he had before they where married, fj is right we have laws and I guess by law she may be entitled to more, but God how much money does she need, she is the one that refused the check that is why I side with him, if he had refused I would call him a money grubbing Beatch as well. Comes a point when enough is enough.

[fj1200]

Thanks!!!! :beer:--Tyr

Talk about reading what you want to read. :rolleyes:


I hear he is appealing the divorce decree in order to pay less.

I thought she was considering appealing and he wrote the check to have her cash it to either convince her to not appeal or get her to cash it and give up her rights to appeal. Either way, billionaire problems...

[revelarts]

Look when we get married we make a vow, a contract, love honor protect etc till death do us part.
the bible says the 2 become one.

when the one break into 2 again by divorce, fairness, law says it's an even split seems to me.

You don't get to claim "I earned it all it's mine" when it had been "ours" in the marriage.
it can't just be yours once it's over.

I may be outta step with the mainstream here but that's how i see it.
as FJ points out that's the law as well.

Sure he "earned" it but since they were married it gave her dibbs and potential access to all of it.
not to mention the possibility of all of it going to her as an heir if he has a heart attack or whatever.
but Divorced neither one "NEEDS" the money, the question is are they going to share it with each other.

either way, I wish i had such a problem to deal with.
how many billions should i give this woman? how much should i keep? geez liouse.

[jimnyc]

I agree with both sides sort of. Per state laws, she is likely entitled to more based on the length of the marriage. BUT, that hardly means she is not greedy. She IS being greedy. And perhaps he is too by not making an amicable split of money/property. And if she is not in a community property state, then she is entitled basically to what is determined in a court of law, and not a penny more. None of what the lawyers decide, or judges decide, will make her less greedy, IMO. And the more the husband fights the more greedy he is too. But basically that's what the majority of divorce cases end up as - greed and spite.

[Bilgerat]

Ok, seems like the "law" is being fronted as the reason she should get more.

The Lady in question was given a court ruling that granted her $995 million, along with other assets worth tens of million more.

A court ruling is law, n'est-ce pas?

But she's DEMANDING more money

We all see that the greedy person has been clearly established here.

[fj1200]

Ok, seems like the "law" is being fronted as the reason she should get more.

The Lady in question was given a court ruling that granted her $995 million, along with other assets worth tens of million more.

A court ruling is law, n'est-ce pas?

But she's DEMANDING more money

We all see that the greedy person has been clearly established here.

:laugh: You've clearly established that anyone who appeals a legal decision is greedy; unreal. And a court ruling is merely an application of law based on a set of facts. Anyone is certainly within their rights to appeal, winning an appeal is a different thing.

[Bilgerat]

And why would one appeal the ruling

GREED

[LongTermGuy]

*Everybody seems love these stories....on how the super wealthy handle things and the amounts of money involved....it is interesting ...and I appreciate everyones comments on what we would do...or how it should be done.........:)

[fj1200]

And why would one appeal the ruling

GREED


And why would one cut a check to the other party in hopes that they will accept the judgement and not appeal with the possibility that they may have to pay more to the other party?

GREED

See that? Works both ways. Unless only a "B*" can be greedy of course. :rolleyes: