The world's most expensive divorce: Russian oligarch ordered to pay out record

[greygoose]

dude was buying and gifting shit like crazy to "reduce" his assets. He bought what, like half a billion in real estate and gifted it to their daughter?

 

[windkick]

Fuck that law. Once you get divorced the truce is over; you dont owe each other shit. Unless she helped him make those billions, she shouldnt get shit

 

[HIMBOB]

Lets put this in business terms,

Two people create an equal partnership 50/50 agreed up front and exceptionally well understood so anyone claiming to have no idea is lying or retarded.

Things go well for 24 years and then Owner 1 is unhappy with the performance of Owner 2 and they decide to part ways.

How would you split the business fairly?
Would you try to work out the value each contributed to the joint venture? or would split as per the existing agreement.

Most pre-nups deal with money you already have. Not money you might have in the future. These 2 married in college when they were 20, and they both had nothing.

EXACTLY.

 

[Dalarna3]

Lets put this in business terms,

Two people create an equal partnership 50/50 agreed up front and exceptionally well understood so anyone claiming to have no idea is lying or retarded.

Things go well for 24 years and then Owner 1 is unhappy with the performance of Owner 2 and they decide to part ways.

How would you split the business fairly?
Would you try to work out the value each contributed to the joint venture? or would split as per the existing agreement.




EXACTLY.

A marriage where one partner makes all the money and the other does not is not an equal partnership. That's what rustles so many jimmies. Maybe she made a lot of the family fortune, but she probably did not. Occasionally taking time out of your day to fuck your rich husband shouldn't get you half of his money.

 

[HIMBOB]

A marriage where one partner makes all the money and the other does not is not an equal partnership. That's what rustles so many jimmies. Maybe she made a lot of the family fortune, but she probably did not. Occasionally taking time out of your day to fuck your rich husband shouldn't get you half of his money.

If he had this shits with her not doing anything he should have divorced her at that time.

As I see it they had a partnership he took on certain tasks and she took on others, this was satisfactory to both of them otherwise they wouldn't have formed the partnership.

Think of it as a business we started together, you did what you said you would, I did what I said I would. Many years later you become unhappy with my performance, what %age of the assets should I get? When it was very clear from day one that we are 50/50 in this partnership.

 

[Dalarna3]

If he had this shits with her not doing anything he should have divorced her at that time.

As I see it they had a partnership he took on certain tasks and she took on others, this was satisfactory to both of them otherwise they wouldn't have formed the partnership.

Think of it as a business we started together, you did what you said you would, I did what I said I would. Many years later you become unhappy with my performance, what %age of the assets should I get? When it was very clear from day one that we are 50/50 in this partnership.

Only marriage isn't a business agreement. It's a personal agreement between two people who (sometimes ostensibly) love each other to spend the rest of their lives together. Where in the vows does it mention a 50/50 financial partnership that can be terminated because one party is "unhappy" with the other's performance? Furthermore, if one was to accept your concept of marriage as a business agreement, what the fuck did she do to be an equal business partner? What tasks did she take on? There is simply no way that 50/50 business marriages can exist in the real world. Sure, one might run into a few marriages where each spouse makes the same, but as far as the work outside of one's career, an even split is impossible.

 

[Archon]

Fuck him
Not feeling sorry for any of them

The life he lived he should be dead by now and let some other human enjoy the luxury instead

 

[HIMBOB]

Only marriage isn't a business agreement. It's a personal agreement between two people who (sometimes ostensibly) love each other to spend the rest of their lives together. Where in the vows does it mention a 50/50 financial partnership that can be terminated because one party is "unhappy" with the other's performance? Furthermore, if one was to accept your concept of marriage as a business agreement, what the fuck did she do to be an equal business partner?

Last bit first,
She brought skills to the table that he thoughy were valuable enough to him to grant her an equal partnership.

And yes I know divorce proceedure isn't written into wedding vows, but there always is something along the lines of, "whats hers is mine, and whats mine is hers".



Lets look at it from another angle.

What she did wasn't worth X billion dollars if you look at hours worked etc etc, so lets say what work she did was worth $1 million (the concept is more important than the number).

Now lets say you get divorced,
Your shared assests are worth 500k, your wife did all the things this guys wife did so should you have to pay her $1m?

Or should she get half? and thereby both parties share upside risk and downside risk equally.


If she bears this risk of the marriage creating no assets surely she should partake in the rewards when it creates unexpectedly large assets.


I have no issues with people excluding assets gained before marriage in divorce prceedings, but wealth build while in a marriage should be shared equally.

 

[cooks1]

Last bit first,
She brought skills to the table that he thoughy were valuable enough to him to grant her an equal partnership.

And yes I know divorce proceedure isn't written into wedding vows, but there always is something along the lines of, "whats hers is mine, and whats mine is hers".



Lets look at it from another angle.

What she did wasn't worth X billion dollars if you look at hours worked etc etc, so lets say what work she did was worth $1 million (the concept is more important than the number).

Now lets say you get divorced,
Your shared assests are worth 500k, your wife did all the things this guys wife did so should you have to pay her $1m?

Or should she get half? and thereby both parties share upside risk and downside risk equally.


If she bears this risk of the marriage creating no assets surely she should partake in the rewards when it creates unexpectedly large assets.


I have no issues with people excluding assets gained before marriage in divorce prceedings, but wealth build while in a marriage should be shared equally.

I appreciate your trying to persuade these fucking tards about this, but it is going to be an uphill battle for you.

If a woman wants to have a job and put kids in daycare while she works, that's fine. But men need to fucking value the contribution of a female homemaker. It is a fucking grind. At least before the kids are old enough to go to school.

Every time a topic like this comes up, clowns on here try to value a stay at home mothers contribution by going 'a baby sitter costs this', 'a maid costs this' getting take out vs your wife preparing meals costs this. That is not how you should value their contribution. These are your fucking kids. It's your family . It's your life.

Perhaps is some of these shits weren't raised in daycare centers while their mom was off at a job they might have a better perspective.

When a woman stays at home with the kids, it's not just the lost income at the moment that is being sacrificed. It's her future earning power as well the vast majority of the time. Not to mention reduced pension or 401 K contributions and reduced SS benefits. If a man and a woman divorce after a woman has been at home for a decade, the woman's financial situation for the rest of her life is considerably worse than if she had been in the workforce during that time. Therefore it's fair that she be an equal partner in what was accumulated during the marriage.

 

[DanaEmelianenko]

I appreciate your trying to persuade these fucking tards about this, but it is going to be an uphill battle for your.

If a woman wants to have a job and put kids in daycare while she works, that's fine. But men need to fucking value the contribution of a female homemaker. It is a fucking grind. At least before the kids are old enough to go to school.

Every time a topic like this comes up, clowns on here try to value a stay at home mothers contribution by going 'a baby sitter costs this', 'a maid costs this' getting take out vs your wife preparing meals costs this. That is not how you should value their contribution. These are your fucking kids. It's your family . It's your life.

Perhaps is some of these shits weren't raised in daycare centers while their mom was off at a job they might have a better perspective.

The only clown in this thread is you. It's sort of interesting how in just about every relationship thread you go to great lengths to justify female laziness, narcissism and selfishness, but this one is pretty bizarre even by your standards. A homemaker's "contribution" to a household is transparently trivial in comparison with breadwinner duties. Any single man could do what you seem to think are the titanic, brutally undervalued tasks of a housewife in just under a couple of hours a day (and probably less). Let's be honest, if it weren't for the fact that women have vaginas and other features that cloud your thinking about the "value" of their "contributions", you would see that your typical homemaker probably deserves about zero. After all, that's what's offered to male breadwinners after divorce in many cases, with all the alimony, child support stuff, less access to the kids, etc (in fact men get less than zero come to think of it. Maybe we should start returning the favor to women in the name of equality.)

 

[cooks1]

The only clown in this thread is you. It's sort of interesting how in just about every relationship thread you go to great lengths to justify female laziness, narcissism and selfishness, but this one is pretty bizarre even by your standards. A homemaker's "contribution" to a household is transparently trivial in comparison with breadwinner duties. Any single man could do what you seem to think are the titanic, brutally undervalued tasks of a housewife in just under a couple of hours a day (and probably less). Let's be honest, if it weren't for the fact that women have vaginas and other features that cloud your thinking about the "value" of their "contributions", you would see that your typical homemaker probably deserves about zero. After all, that's what's offered to male breadwinners after divorce in many cases, with all the alimony, child support stuff, less access to the kids, etc (in fact men get less than zero come to think of it. Maybe we should start returning the favor to women in the name of equality.)

Do you have children? When your kids are 0-4, who was raising them? And by the way, if a male is the stay at home parent, which is happening more, they should get the same considerations a female stay at home parent does. I am not justifying laziness, I simply value parents raising their own kids as opposed to random strangers paid by the hour.

 

[Lost]

I imagine that 2 mil could get you a hitman (of any nationality) that was enough of an expert to make it look like an accident. Maybe she wanted to celebrate her imminent winnings by trying heroin for the first time and misjudged the proper dosage or by drinking and driving her newlybought 458 Italia (the ones that tend to spontaneously catch fire) a bit in the streets of Moscow.

I like your thought process.

 

[DanaEmelianenko]

Do you have children? When your kids are 0-4, who was raising them? And by the way, if a male is the stay at home parent, which is happening more, they should get the same considerations a female stay at home parent does.

No I don't have children. And given the self-entitled attitude of women displayed in this very thread topic, as well as the strange fervour of their male defenders like you, I probably never will. I have some sense, after all.

A question: When kids are zero to four, who is usually working to put a roof over the homemaker's head so that she can "work" a couple hours a day and spend time with the children? Time the (typically male) breadwinner will never get because he's, you know, out working to put a roof over her head so that she can have the privilege of being with the kids. I'm sure you'll figure out some way to rationalize how this is a huge sacrifice on the part of the woman (rather than the man).

For male stay-at-homers they certainly should get the same consideration, but you might want to tell that to breadwinner women, who divorce such men at higher rates (four times higher) than your average couple. It's women who haven't got the news about equality; men are more than happy for egalitarian relationships to happen, if only women would step up to the challenge.

 

[taurus]

The only clown in this thread is you. It's sort of interesting how in just about every relationship thread you go to great lengths to justify female laziness, narcissism and selfishness, but this one is pretty bizarre even by your standards. A homemaker's "contribution" to a household is transparently trivial in comparison with breadwinner duties. Any single man could do what you seem to think are the titanic, brutally undervalued tasks of a housewife in just under a couple of hours a day (and probably less). Let's be honest, if it weren't for the fact that women have vaginas and other features that cloud your thinking about the "value" of their "contributions", you would see that your typical homemaker probably deserves about zero. After all, that's what's offered to male breadwinners after divorce in many cases, with all the alimony, child support stuff, less access to the kids, etc (in fact men get less than zero come to think of it. Maybe we should start returning the favor to women in the name of equality.)

wow.

I agree that in most cases, men get screwed in the divorce, in the areas you mentioned. But don't underestimate womans role in a household, employed or not.

Forgive my presumption, but have you tried performing any of those titanic, brutally undervalued tasks?

Also, if you don't mind me asking, how old are you?

No I don't have children. And given the self-entitled attitude of women displayed in this very thread topic, as well as the strange fervour of their male defenders like you, I probably never will. I have some sense, after all.

nevermind, this answers all of my questions.

we'll talk in a decade or so, when you have a couple of real life experiences we can talk about.

 

[cooks1]

No I don't have children. And given the self-entitled attitude of women displayed in this very thread topic, as well as the strange fervour of their male defenders like you, I probably never will. I have some sense, after all.

A question: When kids are zero to four, who is usually working to put a roof over the homemaker's head so that she can "work" a couple hours a day and spend time with the children? Time the (typically male) breadwinner will never get because he's, you know, out working to put a roof over her head so that she can have the privilege of being with the kids. I'm sure you'll figure out some way to rationalize how this is a huge sacrifice on the part of the woman (rather than the man).

For male stay-at-homers they certainly should get the same consideration, but you might want to tell that to breadwinner women, who divorce such men at higher rates (four times higher) than your average couple. It's women who haven't got the news about equality; men are more than happy for egalitarian relationships to happen, if only women would step up to the challenge.

Both the husband and wife sacrifice when a parent stays at home to raise the kids.

Both parties are giving up the income of one person. Even though there would obviously be a lot more expenses if they were both working (day care, etc), you are still definitely leaving money on the table by having a stay at home parent.

The parent that is the 'breadwinner' sacrifices because as the sole income earner, they work harder, and there is a lot more pressure on them to make it rain. I am the sole income earner in my family.

The parent taking care of the sprogs sacrifices a chunk of their future earning capacity and a great deal of retirement income. (If a person put $5000 a year away in a decent 401 K just between 25-30, that would be close to $500 K when they retired).

So you see, the choices are made together. The sacrifices are made together and the consequences of the choices are endured together. It is fair that in the event of a divorce, the accumulation be shared equally.

This is very different than some chick marrying a guy that is already wealthy. I have no issue with that guy wanting a pre-nup to ringfence the results of his life's work. If my wife died, and I remarried, I would certainly do that. I have enough assets now that it would be worth doing. But when my wife and I met many years ago, neither one of us were dripping in cash.

My wife has a law degree. Before she got pregnant, she had a good job. She was not earning as much as I was, but she was not far off. But we decided together that we wanted to have a stay at home parent and agreed that it would be her.

We have 2 kids- 6 and 21 months. So due to age between the kids (NOT intentional), my wife will have been out of the workforce for 10 years or so before the youngest one goes to school and she can get a full time job. That's 10 years of salary. 10 years of possible savings, 10 years of SS contributions, and 10 years of what was a generous matching 401 K program. And you know what- It's fucking worth every fucking penny. When I see the amazing job my wife is doing, and I see our daughters constantly joyful, smart as fucking tacks, and just blossoming into secure wonderful people, I know we made the right choice. And by the way, your glib '2 hours of work' barb you throw around is nonsensical.

During the time my wife has been at home, my income has nearly tripled. I work my ass off and am reaping the rewards. And in the event of a divorce, I would fully expect to sit down with my wife, pull out the calculator, add it all up, divide it by 2, and cut a check.

So choices were made by all, sacrifices were made by all, and the results should be shared by all.

 

[44nutman]

If the Russian billionaire decided to stay single and adopt 5 kids, how much would it cost to raise those 5 kids? He could pay for 4 nannies so he has round the clock coverage. The Nannies could get breaks. Buy a van for use by the Nannies to tote the kids around. Separate house on the estate to house said Nannies.Have a 10 year window between oldest and youngest kid , so 28 years of 4 nannies would be no where near 2 billion in costs. Conclusion is he is bad at business.
The only way that chick could make a billion is by divorcing a billionaire.
The laws are not fair. Give up half you shit for 10% of the time with your kids. I am not sure why posters are white knighting and already biased system. It is geared unfairly to the chick.
Side note his ex wife, would bang.

 

[cooks1]

If the Russian billionaire decided to stay single and adopt 5 kids, how much would it cost to raise those 5 kids? He could pay for 4 nannies so he has round the clock coverage. The Nannies could get breaks. Buy a van for use by the Nannies to tote the kids around. Separate house on the estate to house said Nannies.Have a 10 year window between oldest and youngest kid , so 28 years of 4 nannies would be no where near 2 billion in costs. Conclusion is he is bad at business.
The only way that chick could make a billion is by divorcing a billionaire.
The laws are not fair. Give up half you shit for 10% of the time with your kids. I am not sure why posters are white knighting and already biased system. It is geared unfairly to the chick.
Side note his ex wife, would bang.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping the billionaire from staying single and adopting 5 kids. He should have done that if that was what he wanted.

And by the way, the only way a woman can make a billion by divorcing a billionaire is by marrying him when he was not a billionaire.

When they got married, he was not a billionaire, or even a millionaire, or even a 'hundred thousandaire' He was an average 20 year old college student no different than millions of others. Basically no net worth.

 

[44nutman]

There is nothing, absolutely nothing stopping the billionaire from staying single and adopting 5 kids. He should have done that if that was what he wanted.

And by the way, the only way a woman can make a billion by divorcing a billionaire is by marrying him when he was not a billionaire.

When they got married, he was not a billionaire, or even a millionaire, or even a 'hundred thousandaire' He was an average 20 year old college student no different than millions of others. Basically no net worth.

So you are cool with giving away 50% of your money for 10% of time with your kids?
Your give up half your shit and the wife also gets the kids.
Does not seem fair to me.

 

[Peteyandjia]

Uh... 24 years guys. What's the problem.

This isn't some 2-year affair trying to cash in.

Pay the broad.

 

[Peteyandjia]

ex mrs:

Kind of a Naomi Watts thing goin on there

Would