Comments on: Connecticut divorce: $43 million post-nup isn’t enough

By: Vivian Zabel

Vivian Zabel — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:25:02 +0000

*shock* $53,000 per week? I wish I had that a year.

Some people are unbelievable.

By: mojo

mojo — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 16:12:19 +0000

Learn to live with disappointment.

By: PhilG

PhilG — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 18:53:01 +0000

According to an article in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03192009/news/nationalnews/poor_little_36m_wifes_trial_opens_160315.htm), they got married in 2002 and Mr. David first filed for divorce in 2004. So they were married continuously for only about 2 years, although they did have some on and off reconciliations since then. So that $43 million seems like an enormous sum for alimony for a marriage of only two years, no matter how wealthy the husband.

By: Happymom4

Happymom4 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:13:08 +0000

And our family of 6 lives on much less than that IN A YEAR (!)

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:49:07 +0000

A quick bit of work with a calculator revels that with $43,000,000 in a non-interest bearing account, one could withdraw $53,000 a week for 15 and a half years without running out.

By: Hans Bader

Hans Bader — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:01:10 +0000

The ex-wife’s argument is utterly ridiculous. A deal is a deal, under Connecticut law, unless it is “unconscionable,” and $43 million is anything but unconscionable.

Connecticut has adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) largely unchanged. The judge should follow it, and uphold the post-nup. See C.G.S.A. 46b-36a to 46b-36j.

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:55:40 +0000

A deal’s a deal, unless you’re a liberal congressman or Swedish royalty. She could date Rep. Barney Frank but I think he’s on the other team.

I do recommend googling her – the jpegs are easy on the eyes… 😉

By: Roy B

Roy B — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:50:13 +0000

She has a lack of self confidence, fears being poor and childless, is described as a Swedish Countess, signed a post-nup that (according to the article) she had crafted by her lawyer, but she certainly does not seem to have a lack of brass (or gold). If she needs over 53K a week to live on, what would she describe poor as?

By: Bob Lipton

Bob Lipton — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:19:34 +0000

I think the punchline here is “We’re not arguing about what you are. We’re haggling over the price.”

Bob