Belle Burden’s “Strangers”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

He sounds like a leech.

I hope she didn’t pay for the properties entirely out of her trust.

If she did pay for the properties he really had it both ways - got to keep all his earnings plus get the home equity plus get grandparents to pay for all the schooling.

I do think that the partner marrying a wealthier person needs to protect themselves with a prenup but this one was really aggressive! He got to keep all his money, have her contribute 50% of living expenses, no need to save for college or pay for private school, and then also got 50% of the real estate that he may not even have contributed to. all that AND he got her services as a SAHM and family connections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

He sounds like a leech.

I hope she didn’t pay for the properties entirely out of her trust.

If she did pay for the properties he really had it both ways - got to keep all his earnings plus get the home equity plus get grandparents to pay for all the schooling.

I do think that the partner marrying a wealthier person needs to protect themselves with a prenup but this one was really aggressive! He got to keep all his money, have her contribute 50% of living expenses, no need to save for college or pay for private school, and then also got 50% of the real estate that he may not even have contributed to. all that AND he got her services as a SAHM and family connections.

That’s why she’s on a revenge tour. Anyone would.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

He sounds like a leech.

I hope she didn’t pay for the properties entirely out of her trust.

If she did pay for the properties he really had it both ways - got to keep all his earnings plus get the home equity plus get grandparents to pay for all the schooling.

I do think that the partner marrying a wealthier person needs to protect themselves with a prenup but this one was really aggressive! He got to keep all his money, have her contribute 50% of living expenses, no need to save for college or pay for private school, and then also got 50% of the real estate that he may not even have contributed to. all that AND he got her services as a SAHM and family connections.

I’m in a similar situation but with no prenup and I would have been just as bad off if I’d had that kind of prenup. My liquid assets also got tied up in real estate and we have a significant, massive income differential that came later in our marriage and our life was subsidized for a brief time before that by my family’s funds.

The only way to truly be protected in this situation is with a post up, but by then you are so legally and financially vulnerable that a cunning spouse is not going to sign one.

Rather than find 50 ways to parse how she could have known better, why are we not wondering about his morality? Really frustrating to read.

[Anonymous]

I think we all agree he is awful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

It was in the essay/excerpt in Vanity fair. The daily expenses were all paid from an account where they each contributed 50-50. And she/her parents paid for the kids' schooling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

She had no idea when she signed the prenup that he would go on to make that much money. Always risks in that respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People commenting don’t understand this world and lifestyle.

The wife socialized and he funded it. They didn’t spend much time together which is evident by the full time girlfriend she didn’t even know about! She was so occupied despite not having a real job and having FT nannies, that she didn’t know her husband had a GF. Think about that.

They were spending practically no time together and they didn’t know each other. Then the pandemic happened and he freaked out being stuck in a home with his vapid shallow wife.

I blame both of them.

Is this an uber wealthy thing or an uber wealthy ny socialite thing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's an interesting story but without her willingness to reflect on the disintegration of the marriage--in my experience it never comes out of nowhere--it's not worth much. And specifics about how he treated her with no empathy or sentiment during the divorce, please. It sounds like he came to dislike her over time. It could be that he is simply a complete sociopath but it is also possible she was less perfect than purported and contributed to the breakdown in some ways.

Also, he told her to keep the houses then she had to empty her trust to pay for them? What?

In the end it is a pretty generic account, true.

I’ve read the whole thread and feel like I’m missing something. Guy cheats and abandons his family, wealthy woman gets screwed by pre-nup she signed because she was in love….

Why is this a story? Just the money?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did she even marry him? I have a friend an immigrant from Eastern Europe. She married a trust funder and they have the opposite arrangement: her earnings are only hers and he pays rent/mortgage. She only marginally contributes to living expenses.
She’s a lawyer and already amassed a fortune, saving every year almost $200k and dumping it in stocks

Good arrangement, seems fair. Since Belle was the trustfund baby in this situation, that explains the pre-nup. Not going to cry for a woman who didn't work for years and has millions in real estate.

She had no idea when she signed the prenup that he would go on to make that much money. Always risks in that respect.

It’s unclear to me how big her trusts and inheritance actually are though …

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

His job was not funding it. Her parents/trusts were funding it. Her family has a lot of generational wealth. She is a direct descendant of both the Standard Oil founder and Cornelius Vanderbilt, among others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

He sounds like a leech.

I hope she didn’t pay for the properties entirely out of her trust.

If she did pay for the properties he really had it both ways - got to keep all his earnings plus get the home equity plus get grandparents to pay for all the schooling.

I do think that the partner marrying a wealthier person needs to protect themselves with a prenup but this one was really aggressive! He got to keep all his money, have her contribute 50% of living expenses, no need to save for college or pay for private school, and then also got 50% of the real estate that he may not even have contributed to. all that AND he got her services as a SAHM and family connections.

I read the book and yes you just summed up their financial arrangement. I'm a female attorney and I'm aghast that another female attorney would allow herself to get into this unfair situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

He sounds like a leech.

I hope she didn’t pay for the properties entirely out of her trust.

If she did pay for the properties he really had it both ways - got to keep all his earnings plus get the home equity plus get grandparents to pay for all the schooling.

I do think that the partner marrying a wealthier person needs to protect themselves with a prenup but this one was really aggressive! He got to keep all his money, have her contribute 50% of living expenses, no need to save for college or pay for private school, and then also got 50% of the real estate that he may not even have contributed to. all that AND he got her services as a SAHM and family connections.

I read the book and yes you just summed up their financial arrangement. I'm a female attorney and I'm aghast that another female attorney would allow herself to get into this unfair situation.

A lot of attorneys don’t have a good understanding of economics to understand how the prenup would play out in various scenarios. She should have listened to her lawyers though! And of course during the marriage she could have made smarter decisions, like purchasing smaller houses that she could pay for entirely out of the trust (so they would be 100% hers) or making him pay a bigger share when his earnings increased.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

That's not true. She (her family) paid for the private schools and she contributed 50% of their expenses every month. He was meticulous about that.

Ouch does she say that in the book that she contributed 50%?

Yes joint bank account. Each month he would transfer a fixed amount and she'd transfer the same. 50-50. Even though she paid for the houses from her trust, her parents paid for the kids' tuition, and she put a lot of kid expenses on the credit card she paid herself out of her family's money. He didn't support her at all.

He sounds like a leech.

I hope she didn’t pay for the properties entirely out of her trust.

If she did pay for the properties he really had it both ways - got to keep all his earnings plus get the home equity plus get grandparents to pay for all the schooling.

I do think that the partner marrying a wealthier person needs to protect themselves with a prenup but this one was really aggressive! He got to keep all his money, have her contribute 50% of living expenses, no need to save for college or pay for private school, and then also got 50% of the real estate that he may not even have contributed to. all that AND he got her services as a SAHM and family connections.

I read the book and yes you just summed up their financial arrangement. I'm a female attorney and I'm aghast that another female attorney would allow herself to get into this unfair situation.

A lot of attorneys don’t have a good understanding of economics to understand how the prenup would play out in various scenarios. She should have listened to her lawyers though! And of course during the marriage she could have made smarter decisions, like purchasing smaller houses that she could pay for entirely out of the trust (so they would be 100% hers) or making him pay a bigger share when his earnings increased.

And anyone going into a marriage looking at absolute worst-case financial or broken-trust scenarios is probably too clear-eyed to actually get married to that person. The reality is that most of us consider the person we are going to marry to be someone we genuinely trust and love more than anyone else in the world. You don’t go into a situation like this expecting them to screw you over.

My advice from the other side is to remember that it takes two to marry, but only one to end a marriage. And that marriage is a contract but not a binding one. It took more cynicism and remove than I had capacity for to me to foresee that my DH would betray me and be happy to financially destroy what we’d built together.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see this differently than a lot of other commenters and don’t necessarily judge him leaving the kids.

I was married to someone with a personality disorder and one of his favorite threats was to threaten to take the kids from me. This was despite me being the primary caregiver.

Would it be better if she was forced to lose primary custody and not see her kids half the time? I believe a child needs both parents, but there is some nuance when one parent has been the primary parent all along.


While she comes from money, she was mostly illiquid, and he was working 24-7 to support that lifestyle. I am familiar with that NY finance lifestyle and you can’t have it both ways. If you want the country house, private school and nice apartment then your husband is mostly absent unless you have generational wealthy to use. It’s not surprising he was mostly absent. I highly doubt she ever offered to return to work so he could scale back and spend time with the kids. She instead probably wanted that Colony Club membership more. Then they get divorced and it makes sense she continued on as the primary and really only true parent.

IMHO the gentlemanly thing to do wasn’t for him to leave her AND take her kids half the time while he was at it. He probably thought he was choosing the lesser of two evils.

I’ve known plenty of these NY women and they are vapid, shallow and their main priority is the lifestyle and social life. I’d be shocked if she’s not similar.

Burden says she emptied her trusts to buy their residential properties which were jointly titled and she also contributed to their family expenses with her money. She also did pro bono work as a lawyer and has ramped it up since her divorce. All that the husband did was use her family name and connections to amass his own wealth which he protected with a prenup.

Pro bono work and paid for homes doesn’t fund a NYC socialite lifestyle. It requires significant generational wealth or a husband at a hedge fund/private equity.

I have NY friends living similar lifestyles who are spending a million dollars a year on Nannies, vacations, private clubs, private schools etc.

Private school for two kids and the obligatory two nannies is $400k a year after tax money.

She was not funding that lifestyle. His job was.

You absolutely do not know that. her parents were paying for college and private schools. And of course she was doing all the work that allowed him to waltz off to his “important” job and still have a family and a home.

She did practically no work. She employed multiple nannies, housekeeper etc.

Yes, her parents paid for many things.