Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Mel Gibsons exwife gets half his $850 mil assets in divorce settlement

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigNorr View Post
    Here's the issue I have with this yes she should be entitled to something as she did leave behind a career for him. However, that career was a dental nurse. So I say pay her what she would have made in 30 years on that job and hell even assume she would have been amazing at her job and would have made more then the average dental nurse. I can 100% guarantee you that doesn't amount to over $425 mil dollars. If the couple had a joint income sure give her her cut as well and even assess her money for raising the kids that's fine too. Give her a prime childcare rate for that amount of time but again thats nowhere near the hundreds of millions mark, throw in some 'pain and suffering' cash for him cheating on her too but I don't rate that as being that high and should be only paid out for this as much as the average joe would have to for causing emotional distress which isn't that much. As for the joint decision for her to have and raise his children, it was a joint decision, hence it was something she WANTED to do as well so even the payment for raising the kids seems excessive to me. Sure she put out for him and raised his kids but that didn't make him the celebrity he was or affect his earnings. I'm sure he would have had alot of money regardless of whether he was with her or another woman so her being married to him had no bearing on the income, which is why I don't agree with her recieving his future money for HIS works during their marriage. As for the settlement with the other woman I didn't really pay attention to that hence I did not comment on that but I believe in that scenario he should have been on the hook for nothing more then the cost of raising the kid and any lost wages she had for raising it. Nobody should be paid out just because they slept with someone famous. The fact she has defended her husband in the past even when he was cheating on her then turned around and took half is one of the things that really bugs me about this as clearly it was not so bad with him and she enjoyed a level of fame and comfort that would have otherwise been totally unavailable to her. Clearly I do have an issue with this woman so maybe I should not marry but luckily for me that's never been that appealing a concept to me as I have never met a woman I would spend my whole life with and view marriage in more financial aspects and tax benefits since divorce rates show love doesn't really last.
    You are missing the point of what a marriage is. It is a legal agreement to become "one person" under the law for the remainder of your lives. Everything that one person earns during the marriage belongs to them both since they are in the eyes of the law the same person. They built a life together, and the assets they gained during their marriage belong equally to both of them. She did not take half of what was HIS. She rightfully took half of what was THEIRS. When you are married, what you have and earn belongs equally to your spouse. That is part of the agreement you make when you marry (except for some pre-nupts which alter that agreement).

    I have not seen anywhere that he tried to keep her from her half of their marital assets. And if he is not mad about it, then why should anyone else be?

    And also, they were married for 30 years. That was a very successful marriage in this day and age of easy divorces.

    And how can you say he would have had a lot of money whether he was married or not. Perhaps she was his total inspiration. Perhaps she kicked him in the rear every day to make him go to work. It is impossible to say what success he would have had without his wife supporting him.
    Last edited by Gillivray; 12-24-2011 at 04:15 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillivray View Post
    You are missing the point of what a marriage is. It is a legal agreement to become "one person" under the law for the remainder of your lives. Everything that one person earns during the marriage belongs to them both since they are in the eyes of the law the same person. They built a life together, and the assets they gained during their marriage belong equally to both of them. She did not take half of what was HIS. She rightfully took half of what was THEIRS. When you are married, what you have and earn belongs equally to your spouse. That is part of the agreement you make when you marry (except for some pre-nupts which alter that agreement).

    I have not seen anywhere that he tried to keep her from her half of their marital assets. And if he is not mad about it, then why should anyone else be?

    And also, they were married for 30 years. That was a very successful marriage in this day and age of easy divorces.

    And how can you say he would have had a lot of money whether he was married or not. Perhaps she was his total inspiration. Perhaps she kicked him in the rear every day to make him go to work. It is impossible to say what success he would have had without his wife supporting him.
    I suppose part of what I was trying to provoke here was a discussion on what marriage is and what people think it should be since these forums are dead lol. I believe that they should alter what marriage is considered especially in this day and age. I think it should not be considered becoming 1 but rather 2 people coming together for mutual benefit, a benefit which does not neccessarily have to be equal. If he chose willingly to give her that money that's fine no problem his choice. However if it is court ordered that is different. Given his personality I doubt he would give up over 400 million willingly and very few people would. I do not think things should be split equally between spouses but the earnings of one and the other be seperate with some extra cash tossed to the one taking care of the kids. Also I favor prenups to protect yourself and I also think seperate bank accounts should be maintained so you know who exactly earned what. I can see why people do not protect their investments early on because they are in 'love' and think things are going to be perfect. Which is why I do not think people should be entitled to half simply because nobody goes into a marriage thinking they will become another divorce statistic so they do not think to protect themself because they do not anticipate being in a position where they would have needed to. Yes they had a long marriage but I wouldn't classify it as a success because it clearly wasn't fully fullfilling to him if he needed to get a lil somethin somethin on the side from other women. As to my argument about whether he would have had money regardless I stand by it. Sure she may have inspired him and made him better. But she met him after his breakout role in Mad Max so he was undoubtedly going to get more contracts regardless of whether he met her or not. If he would have made as much we'll never know. For all we know he would have made more but that's impossible to know.

    I'MMMMMMMM BAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

    norr is basically a lesser version of shep
    hes not as awesome as me, but hell do root (nod)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    You might as well not even get married and just stay FWB's if that's the case Norr. Why wouldn't two people want to become a whole, an equal. The way you're saying it is "hey here's a ring now go do what you do and I'll do my thing. Kthxbai".

    But if that's the way you want to look at marriage then go right ahead. Personally I don't think it's anyone's business who does what and why with their own marriage. If he gave her 400 mill then gratz to the both of them. Now they can go live their own lives cause something went wrong with them begin together.

    ~Betrayed's Little Geeky Kitty~

    ~Read My Story Here Show Your Support~

    I cyber stalk people for fun

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by estrickland89 View Post
    You might as well not even get married and just stay FWB's if that's the case Norr. Why wouldn't two people want to become a whole, an equal. The way you're saying it is "hey here's a ring now go do what you do and I'll do my thing. Kthxbai".

    But if that's the way you want to look at marriage then go right ahead. Personally I don't think it's anyone's business who does what and why with their own marriage. If he gave her 400 mill then gratz to the both of them. Now they can go live their own lives cause something went wrong with them begin together.
    Lol personally I am against marriage and would only ever marry for tax benefits. But then I`ve never met anyone I`d want to spend the rest of my life with and if I did they would have to sign a prenup. But then love is only a chemical imbalance in the brain and it is only a matter of time until you are no longer satisfied with your partner, however that is just my pessimistic viewpoint of the world. I think the partner`s should be assessed at what they would have theoretically made plus a little extra in divorce then they look at how much the person has and the other person fills in that gap as long as it does not go over 50% of benefits. I think you are only entitled to what you were worth to the world assuming you were not fortunate enough to hook up with a celebrity and marry em. The thing is he didn`t just `give`her 400 mil the courts ordered it and I think they should be limited in giving the person what they would have been worth if there was no marriage in the first place. I think this only sends the wrong message in that you can marry for a profit which is not what it should be about.

    I'MMMMMMMM BAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

    norr is basically a lesser version of shep
    hes not as awesome as me, but hell do root (nod)

  5. #15

    Default

    Marriage is 50/50 nuff said. Dont get married or sign a prenup and this stuff wont happen. But then again the reverse can be true, look at britneys ex, that lazy bum doesnt have to work for the rest of his life either and all he did was knock the right chick up and let her self destruct (Mel did the same thing with his anti-Jew rant and taped phone messages).

    ..to have and to hold from this day forward, for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part... Getting married is basicly a contract, one you sign taking a risk that things could go well or go bad.
    Last edited by HAHAHAHAHA; 12-24-2011 at 06:17 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    2,253

    Default

    Well this thread is a lost. I'm out, peace

    ~Betrayed's Little Geeky Kitty~

    ~Read My Story Here Show Your Support~

    I cyber stalk people for fun

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BigNorr View Post
    I think this only sends the wrong message in that you can marry for a profit which is not what it should be about.
    Marriage for profit? Yes, there are some instances where young women marry really old men for profit. (Think Anna Nicole Smith). But this was a 30-year marriage. The way you are writing, it sounds as if you think that 30 years ago when he had nothing and she agreed to marry him, it was only so one day 30 years later she could take a lot of money.

    I don't know how old you are, but 30 years! That is longer than most people who play Evony have been alive.

    I read some more articles about it, and all the court did was approve the divorce settlement that the parties had agreed upon before presenting it to the court. All the other articles also say that the details of the settlement have not been made public. So we really don't know what they agreed to as far as division of their assets, but legally, she was entitled to half, and that is why it is presumed she got half.

    And on a personal note, I guarantee you that when you do meet someone you want to spend the rest of your life with, unless you are a secret billionaire that we don't know about, you will not dream of asking them to sign any sort of pre-nup. When you marry someone for the right reasons, you do not enter into it assuming it is going to fail and so it never occurs to you to sign a prenup, and it will offend you if anyone else suggests it.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,343

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gillivray View Post
    Marriage for profit? Yes, there are some instances where young women marry really old men for profit. (Think Anna Nicole Smith). But this was a 30-year marriage. The way you are writing, it sounds as if you think that 30 years ago when he had nothing and she agreed to marry him, it was only so one day 30 years later she could take a lot of money.

    I don't know how old you are, but 30 years! That is longer than most people who play Evony have been alive.

    I read some more articles about it, and all the court did was approve the divorce settlement that the parties had agreed upon before presenting it to the court. All the other articles also say that the details of the settlement have not been made public. So we really don't know what they agreed to as far as division of their assets, but legally, she was entitled to half, and that is why it is presumed she got half.

    And on a personal note, I guarantee you that when you do meet someone you want to spend the rest of your life with, unless you are a secret billionaire that we don't know about, you will not dream of asking them to sign any sort of pre-nup. When you marry someone for the right reasons, you do not enter into it assuming it is going to fail and so it never occurs to you to sign a prenup, and it will offend you if anyone else suggests it.
    Oh I don`t doubt there was something more then financial motivation at the start or they wouldn`t have had 7 kids together. I also get that it wasn`t that great of a 30 years or he wouldn`t have been sleeping around for awhile now. However it does give other people the view that profit can be made for marrying the right person. For example if a really rich woman or celebrity asked me to marry them for whatever reason and didn`t want a prenup I`d be all over that because I know statistically it won`t last so it`s in my benefit as I will be set for life after her and on the off chance it doesn`t end, good for me obviously something is really good there. What I`m getting at is if there is a financial aspect to consider it could tip the scale when people are considering marriage or not and make people take that leap when they shouldn`t or just arn`t ready to. Obviously she was legally entitled to half or she wouldn`t have got half but what I`m questioning if our society should really allow for this equal division when it is very rare the two partners are equal. And while for all I know the division was Gibson`s idea and she only wanted a mil or 2 I am against anyone being forced to give someone anything they didn`t earn unless they are being compensated for a loss or for injury. As for personally if I got married about whether to get the prenup it depends on the woman. If she is pulling in more then me of course I won`t push it that`s only hurting me lol. If our incomes are close and she is really awesome maybe I wouldn`t either. If I stood to take a sizable financial hit then she is signing or the question is not being popped lol. While this may not be considered marriage for the right reasons in this scenario but if I was ever getting married I would still plan for a future divorce as statistics do not lie and I know it will probably not last. Now I admit I am young (21) and inexperienced in this type of stuff but these are how I`ve always viewed it and I`ll admit my judgement is skewed having been raised in a family that ended in divorce. If marriage works for you great if it doesn`t it sucks. But it is stupid not to financially protect yourself in a society where it is shown not to last.

    I'MMMMMMMM BAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!

    norr is basically a lesser version of shep
    hes not as awesome as me, but hell do root (nod)

  9. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainRon View Post
    She married him for better or for worse. SHE should have known what his character is, and NOT try to change him. His womanising and drinking are just a flaw in his character (i think otherwise :P). I would invisage that he did love her very much, but he loves his drink and his aloofness aswell. To him its a game. His childlike playfulness is part of him and she knew this the day she put on that wedding ring. If she couldnt hack it she should have admitted it to herself and fronted up without excuse, and not hide behind a lawsuit. Typical female gold digger.
    Typical ignorant statement not even worthy of a debate.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    At the blacksmith, sharpening my banaxe
    Posts
    8,743

    Default

    I'm not gonna get to in depth into this argument but you keep insisting that they are solely his earnings and she had no effect on them whatsoever. The support and confidence, not to mention the happiness, a partner can provide can do amazing things. Mel Gibson has had some rough times, especially with the media. His wife always standing by his side definitely helped him. A happier man works better. If you've never been in a serious relationship you might not be able to grasp how seriously positive support from your partner can be.
    Also, depending who gets custody, that money will be intended to support the children as well. If he gets custody, she will have to pay child support, and vice versa.

    I understand your point, that a spouse shouldn't necessarily be titled to half, or any, of what their partner has worked for. But each case is different, that's why each settlement is different. Also, to be with someone for thirty years and leave them with 10 million dollars when you have hundreds of millions of dollars, well, to me, that says something about the kind of person you are. There's no dignity in that.
    Last edited by SickbyDefinition; 12-26-2011 at 10:08 AM.

    The wheels of survival are greased more readily by easy lies than hard truths.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •