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

[Martialarts101]

Can't believe some here are saying she "deserves" the money. For doing what?

 

[RedRocket44]

taken from his wikipedia page.

Dmitry Yevgenyevich Rybolovlev (Russian: Дмитрий Евгеньевич Рыболовлев; Russian pronunciation: [ˈdmʲitrʲɪj ɪvˈɡʲenʲɪʲɪtɕ rɨbɐˈlovlʲɪf], born 22 November 1966 in Perm) is a Russian businessman, investor, philanthropist and the owner of AS Monaco FC. Rybolovlev owned the potash producer Uralkali and recently started to invest into the French football club AS Monaco. His 24 year old daughter Ekaterina Rybolovleva is a well known socialite.

I'd take Paris Hilton or anyone from the cast of Jersey Shore before that any day. Yikes.

 

[thebluerider]

putin should take both of their's cash for producing that.

 

[carlos cadona]

Boo fucking Hoo.

 

[HIMBOB]

The thing is that those "skills" were not business related. Emotional and physical attachment (love) to someone isn't a "skill" of theirs. It's impossible to put an accurate monetary value on being in a marriage. What you're suggesting is that her "love" and emotional support in the marriage is worth 50% of his assets. Which is completely ridiculous. Marriage as a cultural and social institution isn't about (essentially) paying someone to love you -- it's about two people who are in love with each other deciding to spend the rest of their lives together. Look, this guy made enough money that it is doubtful that his wife had to lift a finger. She may not have even raised her kids (nannies and such). Therefore, the only value that she contributed consistently over the course of the marriage was just that -- being married. He would have made the same amount of money with multiple mistresses as he did being married for 24 years. Just being married to a rich guy shouldn't guarantee a woman 50% of what he made when she gets hormonal due to menopause, and decides she wants a divorce. Enough to maintain her lifestyle would be fine; enough to spare her from ever having to work again would be fine. 50% of what he made is disproportionate to what she needs or deserves.

If her love, emotional support, care, business/social advice and child raising is not worth 50% of the money earned by the couple then what is it worth??

If you seek to put a specific number on it surely this same amount should be payable to any wife upon divorce regardless of the couples financial situation.


Or lets look at it another way, lets say the couple divorce and are in debt 1 million, should the male take all that debt and the woman walk away debt free?

 

[HIMBOB]

Question for all,


If the couple were in debt $1 million at the end of the relationship should the male assume all that debt??

 

[HIMBOB]

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.

Its interesting no one has really offered a viable alternative option.

Many instances of she should get nothing at all, but other than that nothing.

 

[Dalarna3]

If her love, emotional support, care, business/social advice and child raising is not worth 50% of the money earned by the couple then what is it worth??

If you seek to put a specific number on it surely this same amount should be payable to any wife upon divorce regardless of the couples financial situation.

I don't think that one can put a price tag on being a functioning spouse -- which is exactly the point. Besides, what about all the times she nagged him about some bullshit or was otherwise an asshole? What about the support that he gave her? The role he played in raising their daughter? Et cetera.

Or lets look at it another way, lets say the couple divorce and are in debt 1 million, should the male take all that debt and the woman walk away debt free?

I think bankruptcy would be in order. Where is the debt originating from in this fantasy scenario? Is it from his business or from frivolous spending?

 

[HIMBOB]

I don't think that one can put a price tag on being a functioning spouse -- which is exactly the point. Besides, what about all the times she nagged him about some bullshit or was otherwise an asshole? What about the support that he gave her? The role he played in raising their daughter? Et cetera.

I think bankruptcy would be in order. Where is the debt originating from in this fantasy scenario?

You think they should go back write down all the work each of them did in the last 24 years and assign a value to that.

How would you value all the times she gave him good advice he followed and they profitted on? What about when she gave good advise he didn't follow it and it cost them money???

Surely you agree that is completely impossible and would result in decades of costly legal battles.
So I ask again do you have a workable solution?


As to my scenario,
They took a business loan and the business failed.

 

[Dalarna3]

You think they should go back write down all the work each of them did in the last 24 years and assign a value to that.

How would you value all the times she gave him good advice he followed and they profitted on? What about when she gave good advise he didn't follow it and it cost them money???

Surely you agree that is completely impossible and would result in decades of costly legal battles.
So I ask again do you have a workable solution?

Yeah, the workable solution is to not value something which is impossible to value at half of his assets. Give her more than enough to live comfortably on, even with her oligarch wife lifestyle; don't take half of his money.

As to my scenario,
They took a business loan and the business failed.

If the loan is in his name, then the burden is assumed by him. If it is both of their names, then it should be split evenly. This has more to due with personal responsibility to pay back debts than it does divorce.

 

[Bukowski82]

In Soviet Russia, Divorce settles you.

 

[HIMBOB]

Yeah, the workable solution is to not value something which is impossible to value at half of his assets. Give her more than enough to live comfortably on, even with her oligarch wife lifestyle; don't take half of his money.

If the loan is in his name, then the burden is assumed by him. If it is both of their names, then it should be split evenly. This has more to due with personal responsibility to pay back debts than it does divorce.

So the woman gets "more than enough to live comfortably on" regardless of what the couple had when they divorced.

Does this apply to all people, or do you want a different rule set just for rich people?




I can see why you as a male would be willing to give women equal share in downside risk (debt) and limited share in upside risk (huge earnings) as it is surely in your benefit but it would be hard to honestly say that is fair.

I hear about guys who bring large assets into a relationship and those assets get split equally at divorce, I do not think that is fair.

But when two people get married and have roughly equal assets when they start out they should be both share equally in all assets when they divorce.


If you do not think the value created by your partner is equal to half of the value you created while together simply do not get married.

 

[fingercuffs]

I'm still crying my eyes out about the fact she only got a few billion.

What sort of legal system does this terrible thing to women?

 

[fingercuffs]

Mark my words, when Kardishitwat and MrsJZ split up y'all'll be saying they're gold diggers.

 

[Toastytoy]

If you do not think the value created by your partner is equal to half of the value you created while together simply do not get married.

thats pretty sad really

 

[ralphc1]

I've always said that the highest paid prostitutes are called wives.

 

[MortalWombat]

Please append this to the "women suck I hate them ewww girl germs" sticky. Why do we need a new thread?

 

[Dalarna3]

So the woman gets "more than enough to live comfortably on" regardless of what the couple had when they divorced.

This is a strawman.

Does this apply to all people, or do you want a different rule set just for rich people?

Each case is different. There is no blanket to apply to rich people or poor people.

I can see why you as a male would be willing to give women equal share in downside risk (debt) and limited share in upside risk (huge earnings) as it is surely in your benefit but it would be hard to honestly say that is fair.

This is another strawman.

If you do not think the value created by your partner is equal to half of the value you created while together simply do not get married.

Which is one of the reasons that the institution of marriage is dying.

 

[HIMBOB]

This is a strawman.

Each case is different. There is no blanket to apply to rich people or poor people.

This is another strawman.

Which is one of the reasons that the institution of marriage is dying.

I think the bolded is so completely and utterly unworkable that I presumed you wouldn't think it possible. So seeing you think that workable I agree the first thing you called a straw man is in fact just that.


BUT the second one you called a straw man is exactly what you are suggesting, just phrased in different terms.

 

[Dalarna3]

I think the bolded is so completely and utterly unworkable that I presumed you wouldn't think it possible. So seeing you think that workable I agree the first thing you called a straw man is in fact just that.

This is why divorce lawyers exist and courts hear divorce cases -- to decided on a case by case basis what should happen.

BUT the second one you called a straw man is exactly what you are suggesting, just phrased in different terms.

No, I said that if a spouse co-signs a legal obligation to pay a debt, then the debt should be paid by said spouse, regardless of current marital standing. Getting a divorce shouldn't erase aforementioned legal obligation. Since she is an equal signer, she has an equal obligation to repay.