and meanwhile the lawyers are getting richer.funny how money breeds greed
Im not sure how old these people are but to claim that in 7 years one has contributed to the others entire lifetimes wealth is ridiculous. Surely it is not hard to calculate what was accrued during the marriage?
Lawyers will be the only winners in this case.
And the most important asset is where exactly. Pulled between parents who have probably forgot the one thing that is priceless. Their daughter. I hope the kid doesnt suffer throughout this ordeal.
She has been acknowledged as a good stock broker and was involved in the investment decisions apparently.Shes entitled to half the nz relationship property, and half the growth of the investments, then. Surely? Doesnt matter where the money comes all from. If he was already worth a few million at the start of the relationship then ring fence that if she agrees otherwise he should have had a prenup.
Please, Lord! Not the $30,000 Audi... Tell me it aint so!!!!!!!!!
Poor buggers! They wont be able to have Dom Perignon on their Kornies this morning.
i guess she feels that she has contributed to his continued wealth. he acknowledges that by offering the 15% settlement however she is wanting more. itd be interesting to see what she brought to the marriage prior to their nuptials, what role she played during their marriage and how much their wealth increased.
True that, but I wouldnt mind having lots of it
thats one thing he will probably never be... poor
Dare I suggest they establish the wealth of the couple in 2011 at the start of the marriage, establish the figure now and go 50:50 on the difference?
lifes not all about money you know.
Life is short.The lawyers are the only winners.Think of others not yourselves
Thats what I was thinking, maybe they should get what they each brought to the marriage + 50% of wealth acquired during marriage each. Seems fair to me.
I feel sorry for the daughter...
My sister lost half her house in a divorce a property she purchased before they met, very sexist to assume a man owns everything before a marriage.
These laws we have around 50/50 are draconian !!This case like many others looks like one individual being a greedy gold digger.They were married for 7 years and the female is asking for 50 % of his net worth of 59 million.Logic says if 2 individuals go into a relationship with unequal net worth for 3 years and split that it cant be 50/50 ? It should be based on a balance between what the individual net worth was prior and any unpaid work by either partner, and time spent.if it was a 50 year marriage then its probably 50/50 but not 7 years.Otherwise a person can conspire to go into a unbalance net worth relationship with the intent of separating. Put anyone off an unbalanced relationship.
The child will suffer. Seen it time and time. A loving family is worth a lot more than these two are squabbling over.
The Relationships (Property) Act dates back to 1976, a time when a lot of women stayed home and took care of the kids while the husband toddled off to work every day. The government has recognised that its a piece of legislation that needs to be reviewed but we will have to wait a long time to see what the new and improved legislation looks like. In the meantime, sharing your life with someone for just 1095 days could see you losing half your assets whether you are 20 or 100. An arbitrary 50% split doesnt make sense and thats why so many cases end up in court. And chillingly, violence on the part of one party isnt taken into consideration by the court nor are the assets owned by either party at the time the relationship commenced. Staying single is a VERY attractive option.
and meanwhile the lawyers are getting richer.funny how money breeds greed
Im not sure how old these people are but to claim that in 7 years one has contributed to the others entire lifetimes wealth is ridiculous. Surely it is not hard to calculate what was accrued during the marriage?
Lawyers will be the only winners in this case.
And the most important asset is where exactly. Pulled between parents who have probably forgot the one thing that is priceless. Their daughter. I hope the kid doesnt suffer throughout this ordeal.
She has been acknowledged as a good stock broker and was involved in the investment decisions apparently.Shes entitled to half the nz relationship property, and half the growth of the investments, then. Surely? Doesnt matter where the money comes all from. If he was already worth a few million at the start of the relationship then ring fence that if she agrees otherwise he should have had a prenup.
Please, Lord! Not the $30,000 Audi... Tell me it aint so!!!!!!!!!
Poor buggers! They wont be able to have Dom Perignon on their Kornies this morning.
i guess she feels that she has contributed to his continued wealth. he acknowledges that by offering the 15% settlement however she is wanting more. itd be interesting to see what she brought to the marriage prior to their nuptials, what role she played during their marriage and how much their wealth increased.
True that, but I wouldnt mind having lots of it
thats one thing he will probably never be... poor
Dare I suggest they establish the wealth of the couple in 2011 at the start of the marriage, establish the figure now and go 50:50 on the difference?
lifes not all about money you know.
Life is short.The lawyers are the only winners.Think of others not yourselves
Thats what I was thinking, maybe they should get what they each brought to the marriage + 50% of wealth acquired during marriage each. Seems fair to me.
I feel sorry for the daughter...
My sister lost half her house in a divorce a property she purchased before they met, very sexist to assume a man owns everything before a marriage.
These laws we have around 50/50 are draconian !!This case like many others looks like one individual being a greedy gold digger.They were married for 7 years and the female is asking for 50 % of his net worth of 59 million.Logic says if 2 individuals go into a relationship with unequal net worth for 3 years and split that it cant be 50/50 ? It should be based on a balance between what the individual net worth was prior and any unpaid work by either partner, and time spent.if it was a 50 year marriage then its probably 50/50 but not 7 years.Otherwise a person can conspire to go into a unbalance net worth relationship with the intent of separating. Put anyone off an unbalanced relationship.
The child will suffer. Seen it time and time. A loving family is worth a lot more than these two are squabbling over.
The Relationships (Property) Act dates back to 1976, a time when a lot of women stayed home and took care of the kids while the husband toddled off to work every day. The government has recognised that its a piece of legislation that needs to be reviewed but we will have to wait a long time to see what the new and improved legislation looks like. In the meantime, sharing your life with someone for just 1095 days could see you losing half your assets whether you are 20 or 100. An arbitrary 50% split doesnt make sense and thats why so many cases end up in court. And chillingly, violence on the part of one party isnt taken into consideration by the court nor are the assets owned by either party at the time the relationship commenced. Staying single is a VERY attractive option.
Cant be a very good Audi if its only worth $30k.