Elin Woods gets 750 Million

[archangel]

Ok since you live in his head. Whose the next side piece he's going to get with?

I don't think it is such a problem for one to think that someone who is going to get married not to know that they are not to cheat. Do You?

It is as if you are saying that tiger didn't know this. He didn't quite understand want marriage was.

 

[Freejames]

I'm still not aware of any verifiable divorce settlement, or that a petition for divorce has even been publicly submitted.

So when I see press reports of $750,000,000 and a few weeks later it's $100,000,000... well I have to call bullshit on the media that reports this stuff based on unnamed "friends" of Tiger and/or Elin.

But lot's of people, once they read this shit on the internet or in some British tabloid take it for gospel. Like I say, show me where a request for divorce has been publicly submitted, I'm pretty sure that's required to terminate a marriage and as far as I know, it hasn't been done yet.

 

[chicity]

So you really think that the cheating was pre-meditated? You honestly believe he planned cheating after he got married?

I know you didn't say this but in rebutal the Chi's point about a man asking his wife not to work to stay home is her choice. Just like if a man rejected a promotion to a bigger city a thousand miles away or even to England that would further his career because they decided that staying in the area was best for the kids that would be his choice and his gamble. I seriously wish people would grow up and stop blaming others for their shit choices.

I don't really think it was "my point"

I was talking mostly about an ethical responsibility towards someone you claimed to love who is now destitute. If a Man looses his career because he failed to move for his family, and is destitute at the time of divorce, and the wife is not, she would also have an ethical responsibility (again, in most not all cases), to help him get on his feet

Blaming your husband for not keeping a promise to you is not blaming him for your own shit choices. If he says "baby, give up your life for me and I will take care of you", and then he follows up with "my bad, I found someone prettier, guess it's soup kitchen time for you, lame-o."

You keep saying "well, that's their choice", but in a marriage you make a million choices that aren't just life gambles -- they're betting on your spouse. In marriage, you agree to trust in each other. Women, particularly, often follow their husband's lead. If someone says "trust me", and they're lying to you, then you can reasonably blame them for that.

In all contracts, you are expected to live up to your end of the deal. If you fail to do so, you can be held liable. I'm not supporting alimony, or any of that. But if you want to start claiming that people are blaming others for their own mistakes, you should include those who are defaulting on their contracts.

 

[Bookworm616]

I don't really think it was "my point"

I was talking mostly about an ethical responsibility towards someone you claimed to love who is now destitute. If a Man looses his career because he failed to move for his family, and is destitute at the time of divorce, and the wife is not, she would also have an ethical responsibility (again, in most not all cases), to help him get on his feet

Blaming your husband for not keeping a promise to you is not blaming him for your own shit choices. If he says "baby, give up your life for me and I will take care of you", and then he follows up with "my bad, I found someone prettier, guess it's soup kitchen time for you, lame-o."

You keep saying "well, that's their choice", but in a marriage you make a million choices that aren't just life gambles -- they're betting on your spouse. In marriage, you agree to trust in each other. Women, particularly, often follow their husband's lead. If someone says "trust me", and they're lying to you, then you can reasonably blame them for that.

In all contracts, you are expected to live up to your end of the deal. If you fail to do so, you can be held liable. I'm not supporting alimony, or any of that. But if you want to start claiming that people are blaming others for their own mistakes, you should include those who are defaulting on their contracts.

Rep added. As a married couple, you make joint decisions that affect both of you....it's not the man makes his choices and they only affects him and the woman makes her choices and they only affect her. When you're in a committed relationship, the choices you make affect the entire family unit.

 

[The Dark King]

I don't really think it was "my point"

I was talking mostly about an ethical responsibility towards someone you claimed to love who is now destitute. If a Man looses his career because he failed to move for his family, and is destitute at the time of divorce, and the wife is not, she would also have an ethical responsibility (again, in most not all cases), to help him get on his feet

Blaming your husband for not keeping a promise to you is not blaming him for your own shit choices. If he says "baby, give up your life for me and I will take care of you", and then he follows up with "my bad, I found someone prettier, guess it's soup kitchen time for you, lame-o."

You keep saying "well, that's their choice", but in a marriage you make a million choices that aren't just life gambles -- they're betting on your spouse. In marriage, you agree to trust in each other. Women, particularly, often follow their husband's lead. If someone says "trust me", and they're lying to you, then you can reasonably blame them for that.

In all contracts, you are expected to live up to your end of the deal. If you fail to do so, you can be held liable. I'm not supporting alimony, or any of that. But if you want to start claiming that people are blaming others for their own mistakes, you should include those who are defaulting on their contracts.

My point which seems to always get ignored is that 1. If you have assets the woman gets half so she won't be destitute. She will have assets to exchange for cash.
2. When a spouse makes a decision for the family when they refuse promotions or other career opportunities as does a spouse when they decides to when staying home with the kids there is no discussed compensation.
3. Cheating aside the outcome would be the same. If I was married and got sick of being married because I didn't like it anymore I would still have to pay alimony.

 

[Bookworm616]

My point which seems to always get ignored is that 1. If you have assets the woman gets half so she won't be destitute. She will have assets to exchange for cash.
2. When a spouse makes a decision for the family when they refuse promotions or other career opportunities as does a spouse when they decides to when staying home with the kids there is no discussed compensation.
3. Cheating aside the outcome would be the same. If I was married and got sick of being married because I didn't like it anymore I would still have to pay alimony.

You more than likely would NEVER have to pay alimony.

 

[The Dark King]

You more than likely would NEVER have to pay alimony.

I'm counting on it lol

 

[Espy]

You more than likely would NEVER have to pay alimony.

Actually Bookie you might be surprised. Essentially if your Ex claims that they cannot support themselves at the standard of living they were accustomed to when they had benefit of your income, they can make a claim for alimony. Determination of whether they get it then has to be made by a judge, and it varies from state to state. Oklahoma have a 3 prong test for alimony and they have to meet all 3 conditions in order to receive an alimony award. However even if they don't meet all 3, that doesn't prevent them from making a claim for alimony, and then you have to waste time and money fighting it. It's bullshit, but it's legal.

 

[Bookworm616]

Actually Bookie you might be surprised. Essentially if your Ex claims that they cannot support themselves at the standard of living they were accustomed to when they had benefit of your income, they can make a claim for alimony. Determination of whether they get it then has to be made by a judge, and it varies from state to state. Oklahoma have a 3 prong test for alimony and they have to meet all 3 conditions in order to receive an alimony award. However even if they don't meet all 3, that doesn't prevent them from making a claim for alimony, and then you have to waste time and money fighting it. It's bullshit, but it's legal.

True. I remember being asked if I wanted alimony when I got divorced. My then husband surely made enough money to make me feel like I should be "accustomed" to that lifestyle, but I'm not a bitch. LOL.

This is also under the assumption that when 2 people divorce they're going to hate each other so much that neither of them listen to reason.

I've had fairly amicable break-ups with my spouses and I know of others who have done the same. Just because you break up doesn't mean that the people have to hate each other.

And who knows, maybe during the course of his marriage, Andrae's wife makes a ton of money, and then HE can ask for alimony in the divorce!!

 

[chicity]

My point which seems to always get ignored is that 1. If you have assets the woman gets half so she won't be destitute. She will have assets to exchange for cash.

This is not at all a given. Not every divorce ends in a 50/50 split, nor should they.

2. When a spouse makes a decision for the family when they refuse promotions or other career opportunities as does a spouse when they decides to when staying home with the kids there is no discussed compensation.

The discussed compensation is the family. If you take that away from a Woman or Man, that's a breach.

3. Cheating aside the outcome would be the same. If I was married and got sick of being married because I didn't like it anymore I would still have to pay alimony.

Yes, because you would be breaching the contract. You entered into a contract that says you want to be married to this person forever. If you breach that contract, you will be held liable.


Also, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many of you guys are taking things like alimony and 50/50 splits as a given. Hire better lawyers, for fucks sake. If your divorce settlement ends in your spouse getting half, plus the kids, plus alimony and child support, then fire your lawyer, hire another, go back to court and rehash it again until you have the kids (and thus no need to pay child support) and a reasonable amount of your money back. There are always opportunities to go back to court. No case is ever "done" until you let it be done.

 

[Bookworm616]

This is not at all a given. Not every divorce ends in a 50/50 split, nor should they.



The discussed compensation is the family. If you take that away from a Woman or Man, that's a breach.



Yes, because you would be breaching the contract. You entered into a contract that says you want to be married to this person forever. If you breach that contract, you will be held liable.


Also, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many of you guys are taking things like alimony and 50/50 splits as a given. Hire better lawyers, for fucks sake. If your divorce settlement ends in your spouse getting half, plus the kids, plus alimony and child support, then fire your lawyer, hire another, go back to court and rehash it again until you have the kids (and thus no need to pay child support) and a reasonable amount of your money back. There are always opportunities to go back to court. No case is ever "done" until you let it be done.

Exactly!! I've said the same thing: HIRE A BETTER LAWYER, if you're THAT concerned about it.

You can always make changes.

Hiring a mediator before you even get to court is probably the best method, if one of you can't be reasonable. It'll save a ton of money in the long run.

 

[The Dark King]

Exactly!! I've said the same thing: HIRE A BETTER LAWYER, if you're THAT concerned about it.

You can always make changes.

Hiring a mediator before you even get to court is probably the best method, if one of you can't be reasonable. It'll save a ton of money in the long run.

Yeah because evry divorce where a woman gets more than she deserves is purely a case of poor represemtation. I'm tapping out ladies this is going no where.

 

[Bookworm616]

Yeah because evry divorce where a woman gets more than she deserves is purely a case of poor represemtation. I'm tapping out ladies this is going no where.

Andrae, you just need to chill out. Not all women are bad and not all divorces turn out to be nightmares for one of the parties.

Just relax....not all women are evil, money-hungry, whore bitches.

Some of us are quite reasonable.

 

[chicity]

Yeah because evry divorce where a woman gets more than she deserves is purely a case of poor represemtation. I'm tapping out ladies this is going no where.

No. Sometimes it's bias. Sometimes (a lot of times), there's racism involved too.

However, I personally know too many Men who just assumed they could personally control a courtroom situation, when what you really need is a lawyer. Your comments seem to suggest there's nothing anyone with testicles can do. That's crazy. A large number of my clients are lawyers. They're pretty much every day superheros. You can do anything you want in this world with the right lawyer, but 90% of the people don't have that lawyer.

And the thing is, dude, nobody's making you get married. Don't, if you're worried about it. BELIEVE ME, if there is only one thing I know about relationships it is that they are doomed the minute you care more about what other people think it should be than you do about what you personally want. And as a business owner? I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that you never, ever, want to enter into a contract you don't want to be in. Even if you do get married, tho, its not at all a given that she'll turn into a raving bitch and that the courts will cosign her taking you for all you're worth. You're acting like it's a given. It's not. That's all we're saying.

I don't know why you're tapping out. You just end up coming back and misrepresenting what was said before, much later. (small dig, but seriously, that was not "Chi's point").

Stay in the discussion, why not actually follow it through? Maybe we all have something to learn.

 

[Espy]

This is not at all a given. Not every divorce ends in a 50/50 split, nor should they.

Also, waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyy too many of you guys are taking things like alimony and 50/50 splits as a given. Hire better lawyers, for fucks sake. If your divorce settlement ends in your spouse getting half, plus the kids, plus alimony and child support, then fire your lawyer, hire another, go back to court and rehash it again until you have the kids (and thus no need to pay child support) and a reasonable amount of your money back. There are always opportunities to go back to court. No case is ever "done" until you let it be done.

Not trying to argue with you Chi, but in the case of assets acquired during the marriage, it is a 50/50 split. It doesn't matter if one spouse significantly out earned the other, or if one contributed nothing financially, they still get 1/2 the assets. That may vary from state to state, but it is the case here for sure.

On the subject of attorneys though, you are right on the mark. There are some things you should never skimp on and divorce attorneys is one of those. Hire the best one you can afford, even if it costs you more than you want to spend, trust me it will absolutely be worth it in the long run.

I also think that a lot of people who get 'taken to the cleaners' don't fight hard enough or long enough. Believe me I know how tempting it is to just give them what they want, no matter how unreasonable, just to get it over with, but you shouldn't do that. No one should allow someone to rape them financially just because they're tired of dealing with them. You give a rat a cookie, he'll be back to ask for a glass of milk. I think you have to decide up front that you're either giving them what they want, or telling them to fuck off until you get something you can accept, and then you have to stick with it. That's assuming one of you isn't capable of reason, which isn't always the case as Bookie pointed out. That was the hardest part for me to accept, the knowing that the timeline is completely out of my hands because he will never be reasonable. I finally had to accept that I was going to just have to stick to my guns, regardless of how long he continued to drag it out, or just give in and let him walk on me. I do not let people walk on me, so the choice wasn't that difficult, but there are still days where I just want it done so badly I briefly consider throwing money at him until he goes away. The kids would kick my ass though, as would my attorney. She's been a real God-send, and though it's cost me, I do feel I've more than got my money's worth.

Exactly!! I've said the same thing: HIRE A BETTER LAWYER, if you're THAT concerned about it.

You can always make changes.

Hiring a mediator before you even get to court is probably the best method, if one of you can't be reasonable. It'll save a ton of money in the long run.

Mediation here is $300.00 - $450.00 an hour depending upon who you choose. Again I think it's one of those things that you shouldn't skimp on, going with the most expensive tends to get you the best, at least here it does. I view the whole thing as the equivalent to burning cash in the fireplace for fuel, but it has to be done. I believe it's a necessary expense, though unnecessary in the sense that two adults ought to be able to work together without so many middle-men, sadly that's not always possible, hence the burning of the money.

 

[wtarshi]

Andrae, you just need to chill out. Not all women are bad and not all divorces turn out to be nightmares for one of the parties.

Just relax....not all women are evil, money-hungry, whore bitches.

Some of us are quite reasonable.

lol...hush now...you know that's not true...!!! we're all evil, money-hungry, whore bitches from hell

 

[chicity]

Not trying to argue with you Chi, but in the case of assets acquired during the marriage, it is a 50/50 split. It doesn't matter if one spouse significantly out earned the other, or if one contributed nothing financially, they still get 1/2 the assets. That may vary from state to state, but it is the case here for sure.

In Illinois, at least, you can choose not to do that. I know of several couples here that came to independent decisions about what was fair, brought that to the court, and that was that.

 

[Bookworm616]

lol...hush now...you know that's not true...!!! we're all evil, money-hungry, whore bitches from hell

LMAO!!

(I'm trying to lull him into a false sense of security. Muah-ahahahahhaaa!!!)

 

[Bookworm616]

In Illinois, at least, you can choose not to do that. I know of several couples here that came to independent decisions about what was fair, brought that to the court, and that was that.

That's what happened in my first divorce. We split the down payment on the house and that was that. Nothing further, even though he made way, way, way more money than I did.

 

[Espy]

In Illinois, at least, you can choose not to do that. I know of several couples here that came to independent decisions about what was fair, brought that to the court, and that was that.

Oh yes, if you come to a decision together on the split the judge will just sign off on it. I was approaching it from the perspective of two people who couldn't agree, at which point the judge will split everything down the middle. Two people agreeing on anything in a divorce is a completely foreign concept to me Chi, and mine's not going well, and I passed the one year mark recently, so I'm a little bitchy about the whole subject. I really should probably avoid this thread altogether, the subject of divorce just makes me