Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by daneoni, Apr 13, 2009.
Poor guy...and another Hollywood marriage bites the dust
Seems pretty fair to me. And they have been married 29 years so it is not a flash in the pan hollywood marriage.
29 years is definitely no easy feat and it seems his streak of unfaithfulness finally reached tipping point
Well on the upside is the letter a week I've sent for 20 years will now be put to good use. Mel knows me and probably already loves me!
It is sad to see 28 years go down but if there is nothing there is nothing.
I never understand how people can get away with taking half the earnings if they did nothing to earn in. Its just stupid
LOL - California is crazier than most places in many ways. I've been here 21+ years and sometimes I think that I'm just as crazy for staying!
What streak of unfaithfulness?
I wouldn't say she did nothing. Raising seven kids is something ... and who knows what else she did behind the scenes.
He could easily make this up with The Passion of the Christ II.
The Passion of the Christ II: Crucify This!
I'm not a fan of his at all, but it's sad for them nonetheless.
And yes, I do think it's fair that she gets half the money if he earned $900m while married.
No offense, but this comment comes from a lack of experience (and if not, just wrong
As someone who stays at home with the kids, I 100% respectively disagree.
A marriage is teamwork. period. If she hadn't looked after the kids, the house(s), filing Jessica's letters and doing everything possible which allowed Mel to work on his film career, it might not have grown to what it has. Simple as that. She's earned it all right.
I know that my wife wouldn't be as successful as she is if it wasn't for me looking after the house, the meals, organizing the kids' activities, homework doctors/dentists appts etc...etc.. That's not bragging.....it's the truth. She knows it and thanks me all the time. I just re-read that last paragraph and need to be clear, she's a great Mom and is still very involved in our kids' lives - it's not like she works all the time and ignores the munchkins. I just take care of the other stuff so her time with them is quality time.
I can't say I have much sympathy for the anti-semite.
And who's to say he wouldn't have earned twice as much without her? Not that "community property" is a bad idea, but to arbitrarily set it at 50% is ludicrous. He was paid for his work, talent, and creativity. She's getting half for maintaining the house, which honestly could have been done by any number of people; it's not really a unique skill. That logic would mean that a nanny or maid are entitled to half of the employer's earnings, for they functionally did the same.
The Beeb reckons he's worth ~$640m. There's no way in hell she'll get more than half, surely!
All anyone knows is what the tabloids and TV is reporting and how much of that is TRUE and what parts are not twisted.
Most likely, since she's also asking for attorney's fees and spousal support. Why one would need monthly maintenance along with a $320M payout is beyond me.
And I would say any reasonable person could live on her "monthly maintenance" expenditures comfortably for a year.
Can't they just spend it on help paying off the national debt? That is a lot of money between two people.
Its the toughest job. Maids etc get to go home and just don't have anywhere near the same responsibility.
Since marriage is financial as well as emotional partnership, they earned it, not just him. Unless they had a previously agreed-to arrangement (i.e., a prenup), they own each other's assets just like any other marriage.
If all he needed was a maid at home, he would have hired one instead of staying married to her. Presumably, she provided more for him than a maid does. Let's not pretend to understand their relationship from afar. And if that's what you think a stay-at-home mom is all about, then I hope you don't get married or have any kids anytime soon.
Now that, I agree, would be ridiculous. If she were to get half his assets, there would be no need for spousal support. I would go so far as to say that in this day and age, with most women working outside the home, alimony is an outdated concept. Unless she has been a housewife her entire life and has no workplace skills or money of her own, alimony is not justifiable.
I was merely positing an additional set of possible considerations, not necessarily dovetailing with my personal beliefs. That tends to be the problem with both the internet and most trigger-happy folks these days, automatically and emotionally assigning a particular mindset in a discussion (though you seem to have avoided that trap).
As for myself, I've been married for longer than most members here have been alive, and have provided the overwhelming majority of family income through my own efforts, my spouse having no part in that part of the equation (other than my sense of personal obligation to provide for the household).
I made no assumption of the relationship, no did I presume to speak about stay-at-home moms--or dads--in the discussion. I simply provided additional points for thought (which I fully expected to get lost in the general righteous indignation one way or another).
I think he still would have made the money without her, but he just wouldn't have had kids, she should get half the kids. Not half the money