Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

She’ll get her share of the $45 million when the stepmother dies. How is that supposed to help her if she needs the money now? And why shouldn’t a man pay child support and expenses for his own kids?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

In the article, it says she reported an income of 800k in 2019 and that she is set to inherit 45 million (along with her brother) from her stepmother--I understand money she is set to inherit is not actually hers yet, but come on, this is no woman under any sort of financial stress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

It was untrue that she couldn't afford to buy out half? Where does the article say that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

Yes, she did claim that.....and that claim was untrue, per the financial disclosures.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

I liked the book but I'm not surprised at the omissions. So many books are like this, especially memoirs.

^^and it doesn't speak well for the publishing industry. Also, she could have focused less on the financial outcome and more on divorcing. The New Yorker article notes that the original NYT article was about the betrayal. I read the book and I really wasn't that interested in the settlement details.

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

I liked the book but I'm not surprised at the omissions. So many books are like this, especially memoirs.

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

Excellent article, as par the course for the New Yorker.

Anonymous wrote:Wait the NY Times, really?!? Where the truth goes to die. I'll pass.

You already said this.

Anonymous wrote:This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

She never claimed to be in dire financial straits? She claimed that she would need to sell the properties (which are worth 8 figures) because she couldn't afford to buy out her ex-husband's half.

This New Yorker article summarizes financial disclosures from the divorce case showing that the author was never in the dire financial straits she claimed: https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/whats-missing-from-belle-burdens-strangers

It actually makes a lot of sense that she had way more money in her separate property than she let on. Reading the book, I was questioning why she didn't leverage her experience doing pro bono legal work into an actual paying job if her financial situation was so grim. Also, she will get $50k in child support PER MONTH until the youngest is 22. The 0.1% sure live differently.

Anonymous wrote:Wait the NY Times, really?!? Where the truth goes to die. I'll pass.

Please tell us where you recommend? The Washington Times?

Wait the NY Times, really?!? Where the truth goes to die. I'll pass.

Anonymous wrote:Belle was incredibly naive despite her being well educated. She emptied out her trust to pay for 2 houses and added his name to the deeds. All this was against her attorney’s advice. Meanwhile, her mother was paying for the kid’s private school, but mom’s money was running out so those charges reverted to Belle and her husband. I was hoping the ex ended up with the suicidal AP, but that didn’t happen.

x 1,000,000 Plus, she's an attorney for goodness sake! I couldn't believe how naive she was, just totally lacking in common sense. Plus, her own parents are divorced.... it's not like she didn't know that marriages don't always work out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t think Belle’s prenup made her inheritance joint. I thought it was the fact she used money from the trust to purchase homes and put him on the title.

I wouldn’t be interested in sharing my income 50% if my spouse came into the marriage with significant assets that were kept separate. I don’t blame him.

Personally I think she has a major spending problem. It’s a good thing she wrote his book because if not she’d end up broke like her dad.

There's no evidence she has a major spending problem. Didn't you read the above? Belle came in with family money assets, and used them to buy two marital homes which she put in both their names. Yet he kept all his hedge fund income exclusively for himself while she stepped out of the workforce to raise their 3 kids. It's not like Belle was less well educated. She has a Harvard undergrad degree and an NYU law degree.

There isn’t evidence but there are clues. Also history tends to repeat itself and her dad went broke. The lifestyle she described requires serious cash and the fact she liquidated trusts for those properties and still had a small mortgage is a red flag. I’ve known some families in these circles and they bizarrely have terrible money management skills. I also would have scrutinized her spending and been wary of ending up like her dad.

Consider this family was likely spending well over $200k on private clubs, $210k+ a year on private schools (yes paid for by family), and god knows what else. These types of women spend $500 outfitting a single child for Easter. I’d guarantee their annual spend was close to a million a year and that didn’t even include housing.

Until she published this book she was on the fast track to not having any money. If she hadn’t married a high earning guy she would have not been able to live that lifestyle.

Belle was incredibly naive despite her being well educated. She emptied out her trust to pay for 2 houses and added his name to the deeds. All this was against her attorney’s advice. Meanwhile, her mother was paying for the kid’s private school, but mom’s money was running out so those charges reverted to Belle and her husband. I was hoping the ex ended up with the suicidal AP, but that didn’t happen.