Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not his first "rodeo." He'd been through it before and lost $80 mil to his ex-wife.

He hired the best lawyer for the prenup. It's ironclad.

The prenup gets thrown out. This marriage was 18 years and produced 3 kids and she ends up with $1m out of $400m? It’s egregious and offends any reasonable person. It’s hard to defeat a prenup but this is the case to do it.

It’s not 1950 anymore and most reasonable people know that. Women can’t just live off the file anymore.

It became painfully obvious when women had to pay men alimony. It’s insane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is not his first "rodeo." He'd been through it before and lost $80 mil to his ex-wife.

He hired the best lawyer for the prenup. It's ironclad.

The prenup gets thrown out. This marriage was 18 years and produced 3 kids and she ends up with $1m out of $400m? It’s egregious and offends any reasonable person. It’s hard to defeat a prenup but this is the case to do it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems strategic to me on her part that she did this when her kids were older but not yet out of the house. With no kids to house, she'd have zero argument for maintaining the lavish lifestyle. But she had to know she was on thin ground so waited a good long while to try to get out. She doesn't have much of an argument.

A man is not a plan. That is for sure.

I think her argument needs to be, in part, that when the kids are with him, they live in a $125m house in Carpinteria, presumably where they attend school. It's the home she's lived in for the last 20+ years while she stayed home with the children and he left to play in a band and film tv and movies. He's proposing that she live on $38,000 per month in child support (and she also gets a whopping ~ $1m as her total net worth leaving the marriage ). A quick google search suggests that she's not going to find a decent 4-bedroom home in Carpinteria for less than $10,000 per month, and at that price, it is going to feel very different to the kids (and her) than dad's house. How do the kids not hate their dad for doing this to mom? I would - my parents are still married and my dad controls all the money and to this day I still fear for my mom. It's a bad way to treat someone. The cost of living in Carpinteria is very high. They had a traditional, old school marriage where she stayed home with the kids and he did whatever he wanted, but now that it's over, he's kicking her to the curve with relatively nothing (0.25% of assets).

The lawyer who allowed her to agree to this prenup, with no adjustments for length of marriage or number of kids, is to blame in large part.

I also agree that "a man is not a plan". I wouldn't want this for myself or my daughter.

There is a house for <$2M

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4710-Eleanor-Dr-Carpinteria-CA-93013/15875241_zpid/

One town over

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8109-Puesta-Del-Sol-Carpinteria-CA-93013/16308116_zpid/

Or one town the other way Santa Barbara

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/208-S-Voluntario-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15883077_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/415-N-Canada-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15889682_zpid/

DP. But he gave her 1M so these are all out of her price range. She can’t even get a shitstack in north Arlington for that.

You do realize that most people don’t pay 100% cash for a home? She can easily put down 20% and have a mortgage and go to work like the rest of us.

Anonymous wrote:This is not his first "rodeo." He'd been through it before and lost $80 mil to his ex-wife.

He hired the best lawyer for the prenup. It's ironclad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems strategic to me on her part that she did this when her kids were older but not yet out of the house. With no kids to house, she'd have zero argument for maintaining the lavish lifestyle. But she had to know she was on thin ground so waited a good long while to try to get out. She doesn't have much of an argument.

A man is not a plan. That is for sure.

I think her argument needs to be, in part, that when the kids are with him, they live in a $125m house in Carpinteria, presumably where they attend school. It's the home she's lived in for the last 20+ years while she stayed home with the children and he left to play in a band and film tv and movies. He's proposing that she live on $38,000 per month in child support (and she also gets a whopping ~ $1m as her total net worth leaving the marriage ). A quick google search suggests that she's not going to find a decent 4-bedroom home in Carpinteria for less than $10,000 per month, and at that price, it is going to feel very different to the kids (and her) than dad's house. How do the kids not hate their dad for doing this to mom? I would - my parents are still married and my dad controls all the money and to this day I still fear for my mom. It's a bad way to treat someone. The cost of living in Carpinteria is very high. They had a traditional, old school marriage where she stayed home with the kids and he did whatever he wanted, but now that it's over, he's kicking her to the curve with relatively nothing (0.25% of assets).

The lawyer who allowed her to agree to this prenup, with no adjustments for length of marriage or number of kids, is to blame in large part.

I also agree that "a man is not a plan". I wouldn't want this for myself or my daughter.

There is a house for <$2M

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4710-Eleanor-Dr-Carpinteria-CA-93013/15875241_zpid/

One town over

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8109-Puesta-Del-Sol-Carpinteria-CA-93013/16308116_zpid/

Or one town the other way Santa Barbara

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/208-S-Voluntario-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15883077_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/415-N-Canada-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15889682_zpid/

DP. But he gave her 1M so these are all out of her price range. She can’t even get a shitstack in north Arlington for that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seems strategic to me on her part that she did this when her kids were older but not yet out of the house. With no kids to house, she'd have zero argument for maintaining the lavish lifestyle. But she had to know she was on thin ground so waited a good long while to try to get out. She doesn't have much of an argument.

A man is not a plan. That is for sure.

I think her argument needs to be, in part, that when the kids are with him, they live in a $125m house in Carpinteria, presumably where they attend school. It's the home she's lived in for the last 20+ years while she stayed home with the children and he left to play in a band and film tv and movies. He's proposing that she live on $38,000 per month in child support (and she also gets a whopping ~ $1m as her total net worth leaving the marriage ). A quick google search suggests that she's not going to find a decent 4-bedroom home in Carpinteria for less than $10,000 per month, and at that price, it is going to feel very different to the kids (and her) than dad's house. How do the kids not hate their dad for doing this to mom? I would - my parents are still married and my dad controls all the money and to this day I still fear for my mom. It's a bad way to treat someone. The cost of living in Carpinteria is very high. They had a traditional, old school marriage where she stayed home with the kids and he did whatever he wanted, but now that it's over, he's kicking her to the curve with relatively nothing (0.25% of assets).

The lawyer who allowed her to agree to this prenup, with no adjustments for length of marriage or number of kids, is to blame in large part.

I also agree that "a man is not a plan". I wouldn't want this for myself or my daughter.

There is a house for <$2M

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4710-Eleanor-Dr-Carpinteria-CA-93013/15875241_zpid/

One town over

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/8109-Puesta-Del-Sol-Carpinteria-CA-93013/16308116_zpid/

Or one town the other way Santa Barbara

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/208-S-Voluntario-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15883077_zpid/

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/415-N-Canada-St-Santa-Barbara-CA-93103/15889682_zpid/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$400m and she gets a $1m property settlement (.25%) is spite. It’s a terrible offer to a woman you’ve been with for 25 years and had 3 children with. Much of his estate was built over the course of their married life. A reasonable, non evil person would’ve quietly given her a minimum of $10m (still less than 5%) and avoided all the negative publicity.

She deserves what she agreed to in the prenup.

A reasonable person honors that agreement and doesn’t ask for more.

PP didn't use the word "deserve". The point is that a man with a $400m estate should settle this matter with his partner of 25 years, mother of his 3 children, privately for a conscionable amount. $1m of $400m after an 18 year marriage and 3 kids is unconscionable.

He did. They documented it and signed it.

Paying women to be mothers is a disgusting idea.

She got more of his money when they were partners. He gave her the greatest gift in the world 3 children and she never had to work and probably had Nannie’s. They have the best life/education/ etc

Marriage is not a profitable job the idea that women are paid to be wives and mothers is unconscionable.

19/25 amazing years.

Paying her more after the divorce is terrible practice.

It’s the “Nannie’s” poster again. Has it out for women who can afford nannies.

Not against Nannie’s just pointing out she has a great life all expense paid.

Sorry but you’re not a salaried employee you were a wife. Now you’re not,

You are very recognizable because of your miscapitalization and mispunctuation of that one word

And how you make every sentence a paragraph. We know you're not against nannies; you always trash MBs (Mom Bosses).

New poster, sorry to break your bubble Inspector DCUM, but iPhone has a recent (in the past year or so) auto correct that turns ‘nannies’ into Nannie’s. I only know this because I’m a nanny and have to correct it every post I ever make in life.

I’m a nanny who works for families like this (Jeff can tell you that, I’m the ‘celeb nanny’ who posts here regularly) and can assure you this family likely had a team of 24/7 rota nannies. That doesn’t mean the parents aren’t involved and that this mum didn’t do anything all day, but layabout. Nannies can attest to all the sahms who micromanage all day long, so it’s pretty rare to actually meet a layabout sahm. I’m sure these nannies are also earning over 100k a year each, but they work in a team with the other nannies AND THE PARENTS.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$400m and she gets a $1m property settlement (.25%) is spite. It’s a terrible offer to a woman you’ve been with for 25 years and had 3 children with. Much of his estate was built over the course of their married life. A reasonable, non evil person would’ve quietly given her a minimum of $10m (still less than 5%) and avoided all the negative publicity.

She deserves what she agreed to in the prenup.

A reasonable person honors that agreement and doesn’t ask for more.

PP didn't use the word "deserve". The point is that a man with a $400m estate should settle this matter with his partner of 25 years, mother of his 3 children, privately for a conscionable amount. $1m of $400m after an 18 year marriage and 3 kids is unconscionable.

He did. They documented it and signed it.

Paying women to be mothers is a disgusting idea.

She got more of his money when they were partners. He gave her the greatest gift in the world 3 children and she never had to work and probably had Nannie’s. They have the best life/education/ etc

Marriage is not a profitable job the idea that women are paid to be wives and mothers is unconscionable.

19/25 amazing years.

Paying her more after the divorce is terrible practice.

It’s the “Nannie’s” poster again. Has it out for women who can afford nannies.

Not against Nannie’s just pointing out she has a great life all expense paid.

Sorry but you’re not a salaried employee you were a wife. Now you’re not,

You are very recognizable because of your miscapitalization and mispunctuation of that one word

And how you make every sentence a paragraph. We know you're not against nannies; you always trash MBs (Mom Bosses).

Anonymous wrote:Well, 1M for 20 years works out to 50k a year )without adjustment for time value of money), and I think he’d have paid a nanny 4 times that. She’s got no real future career prospects given she gave up her career to raise their kids so he could work the type of job he does. I don’t think she gets half but I do think 1M is unfair. It sounds like a lot but won’t buy her a decent house in that area and she has no 401k to fall back on when thw kids are gone. If I were the judge I’d be looking to give her more in the 5-10M neighborhood if I could.

Anonymous wrote:This is not his first "rodeo." He'd been through it before and lost $80 mil to his ex-wife.

He hired the best lawyer for the prenup. It's ironclad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:$400m and she gets a $1m property settlement (.25%) is spite. It’s a terrible offer to a woman you’ve been with for 25 years and had 3 children with. Much of his estate was built over the course of their married life. A reasonable, non evil person would’ve quietly given her a minimum of $10m (still less than 5%) and avoided all the negative publicity.

She deserves what she agreed to in the prenup.

A reasonable person honors that agreement and doesn’t ask for more.

PP didn't use the word "deserve". The point is that a man with a $400m estate should settle this matter with his partner of 25 years, mother of his 3 children, privately for a conscionable amount. $1m of $400m after an 18 year marriage and 3 kids is unconscionable.

He did. They documented it and signed it.

Paying women to be mothers is a disgusting idea.

She got more of his money when they were partners. He gave her the greatest gift in the world 3 children and she never had to work and probably had Nannie’s. They have the best life/education/ etc

Marriage is not a profitable job the idea that women are paid to be wives and mothers is unconscionable.

19/25 amazing years.

Paying her more after the divorce is terrible practice.

Obviously she left for cause - the economics and risk of leaving with that prenup are as bad as I've ever read about. And people of such substantial means regularly transfer money to their partners when they leave, even gay couples who never had kids together often take care of the person they spent a significant part of their life with. And in this case, they built a life together that doesn't work without her staying home with the kids. He reportedly left for 4 months a time to film movies and tv series, and she stayed home with the kids. Even if they had nannies, no person with a conscious leaves their kids home with only nannies for 4 months at a time. I get that leaving half of all marital property to a partner who never worked no longer holds up, but this case is extreme. He should settle and the settlement should include a meaningful property settlement to allow her to live comfortably.

Nobody marries a movie star and thinks they are home all the time. 4 months is nothing

Nobody deserves 1/2 of a persons earning in or out of a marriage, people deserve enough to live. She got way more.

They settled on the agreement they both wrote and signed.

She’s a designer, go design

I agree with the bolded -- that no one marries a movie star expecting them to be home all the time -- but since both of his wives have/had the same complaint, it sounds like he is really just never home.