The Lemon Fool

'Millionaire seeks greater share in divorce because he is a 'genius', prompting court to examine the meaning of the word '

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12 ... ing-court/

Reading the article, it could equally be argued that he was "lucky" in that the deals that he risked worked out well.
It's clear why they are getting divorced!

oldtimer wrote:Reading the article, it could equally be argued that he was "lucky" in that the deals that he risked worked out well.It's clear why they are getting divorced!

Is it? They were together over 20 years.

Mel

If he is such a genius then he will have no problem doubling his money in 2017 and be right back where he was before the divorce. While his wife will probably just fritter hers away on shoes and jewellery.

John

redsturgeon wrote:If he is such a genius then he will have no problem doubling his money in 2017 and be right back where he was before the divorce. While his wife will probably just fritter hers away on shoes and jewellery.

Yes, indeed. I don't know whether very asymmetrical needs get taken into account in such divorce settlements as well as very asymmetrical contributions, but if I were her lawyers, I would be looking at the back-up argument that if he is indeed such a "genius", then it indicates just as much that her needs are greater than his as that his contribution is greater than hers. I.e. the argument that he is a "genius" strikes me as a two-edged sword...

Though quite possibly the word "need" is rather inappropriate in the context of the sums involved!

Gengulphus

Gengulphus wrote:Though quite possibly the word "need" is rather inappropriate in the context of the sums involved!

I believe that courts take a very particular view of "need" which includes concepts like an entitlement to the lifestyle that one has become used to.

I was thinking in particular of the John Cleese divorce. (Or to be more specific, his 4th divorce, so maybe he really should know better at this point). What was interesting about it was that his wife was poor when he met her, and lived in a council flat. Naturally she became accustomed to a very grand lifestyle solely as a result of her marriage and, at the divorce, (she had the same divorce lawyer as Princess Di, I believe) the argument was made that regardless of her humble origins, she deserved to continue to live the way she has been doing while married.

Result? Out of his 20 million or so net worth, she got 12 million. Evidently that was what she "needed".