I think it's time we realized the whole world does not run this marriage thing like Naijas typically run/see it.

Typical Naija is almost like the woman has received a favor just because a man married her. Your wife should be a valued partner, and the marriage unifies you both as one. No more " it's my money, it's her money." When it's our money, you know it has to be shared if/when the marriage breaks down, regardless of who brought home the bacon.

Guy, your the lost soul here. Does it mean a man cannot make millions without a woman? Are you waiting for when you marry before ur wife starts to give you ideas on how to make your millions? Are you a dunce who cant even think without a woman's input. Haven't you seen single men make billions ? Why do you keep on attacking any guy that he married a wife that contributes nothing if he does not agree with this sh.it? Guy have you been poor before and tried toasting a gal? Have you been rich before and tried toasting a gal? You cannot just suffer and hussle to get out of poverty when no gal wants you and become rich only for them to be swarming like bees around you wanting a share of your hard-earned money. Guy, if you believe that you can be rich with a woman then keep on waiting for the woman while your mates are making their billions. What a way of thinking.

MRbrownJAY: ^^^lol, here is a clear example of another lost soul who would marry a woman that contributes NOTHING to his life....or better yet, anything she "may" contribute would have a price tag (set by HIM of course).

In the name of wanting to keep the kids and demanding such amount for her lifestyle and the kids. If this woman squanders this money like some unwise people do, will the kids go back to the father for money? Is there any law again that can make this man spend a dime on the kids irrespective of the fact, he is the father. If the man refuses to spend a dime on the kids after this payment, i hope he will not be a wicked dad. So, leave kids out of this, let the woman enjoy what the british law has afforded her as it last. Hope she spends the money on the kids and their future and not on sugarboys, cos no law states the man will settle the kids after this outrageous payment.

baby_123:

Understood, however, most women do this to preserve something for their kids. Who knows how smart the next woman will be, who most likely will get the guy's favor and keep everything for her own kids. Everyone is working in their own interest here. Some men are known to abandon their kids when the mother crosses them. So she has to fight for what she can. The warri properties is a pipe dream though. The fact also is that this guy grossly underestimated his wealth. So really this lady is getting what he wants her to get anyway. It is a win-win for both of them. This guy can probably dash her the 17m pounds without blinking. Let us think about the undisclosed wealth from naija he probably has for a sec.

MRbrownJAY: ^^^lol, here is a clear example of another lost soul who would marry a woman that contributes NOTHING to his life....or better yet, anything she "may" contribute would have a price tag (set by HIM of course).

I understand by your position in this matter that a woman's contribution in a marriage can be quantified financially hence when the marriage is dissolved she is entitled to her share of the contribution. Again I am not surprised about such a materialistic view, it is widespread and goes hand in hand with the unjust sense of entitlement I mentioned earlier. With such thinking children of rich parents are entitled to the family fortune even when they did not have a DIRECT hand in building said fortune, after all they contributed to it by being good children, doing their homework and greeting their elders, no?

Let's not kid ourselves, this is a clear case of wanting to reap where one did not sow and the fact that this has been facilitated by civil law does not change it from being that. A clear cash grab in its essential form.

I have chosen to overlook the personal attack embodied in your post above, it is aimed at creating spite and does nothing in justifying the matter under discussion.

Is dis not d same woman dat has 4 kids from a previous marriage.

donchris999: Guy, your the lost soul here. Does it mean a man cannot make millions without a woman?

where did you read that? abeg gp get some English comprehension lessons before coming to some discussions on NL.

Are you waiting for when you marry before ur wife starts to give you ideas on how to make your millions?

sadly, you should understand that it take a lot of TIME and ENERGY to care and sustain a healthy marriage. you certainly cannot do it ALONE. if a man has to care for A HOME, CHILDREN etc then chances are, he wont have the time to fully do his duties at work (unless you expect others to raise his children). but hey, i guess in your world, an uneducated dumb aaasss maid can raise your children, right?!

Are you a dunce who cant even think without a woman's input. Haven't you seen single men make billions ?

open your mind instead of thinking like a donkey, this thread is about MARRIAGE LIFE and the subsequent DIVORCE, so A) nobody gives a damn about single men's (or women's) life because Oprah is also single yet as a woman can make make billions on "her own", and B) if a man gets married then he has to listen to the input of his wife, as this is what happens when you join a MATRIMONIAL UNION. you may not have to do and follow everything she has to say , BUT you sure have to take her input into consideration, duh!

Why do you keep on attacking any guy that he married a wife that contributes nothing if he does not agree with this sh.it?

I couldnt care less what you or others believe, what is important here (and you fail to understand) is that THIS IS THE LAW and you have to agree with it or move to the bloody jungle and settle in the highest tree (or have a tight prenup before getting married).

Guy have you been poor before and tried toasting a gal? Have you been rich before and tried toasting a gal? You cannot just suffer and hussle to get out of poverty when no gal wants you and become rich only for them to be swarming like bees around you wanting a share of your hard-earned money. Guy, if you believe that you can be rich with a woman then keep on waiting for the woman while your mates are making their billions. What a way of thinking.

when you go for these English comprehension lesson i told you earlier, then come back and make a sentence that we can understand .... because i am very sorry but i dont understand GIBBERISH!

@Bawss1
you must have misunderstood my post, the contribution of a woman CANNOT be quantified, unless both partner bring exactly the same thing to the union......sadly because most dont, we must take everything that the union generated during marriage, and split it evenly and fairly. yes, some people will be quick to say that a woman's contribution is less than a man's (to each their own), but THE LAW says otherwise. so again, anyone who has a problem with this issue should either NEVER get married OR have a tight prenup, EOD!

Good for her. You think it's only the richest person amongst a couple that has a brain that has helped make them who they are. Married for how many years and the yeye man wanted to leave her high and dry.

Look I am not here to argue but I will speak for myself here, do you know how many times I have used my own "intelligence" to stop my husband from making a huge mistake in business, do yous know how many times he's woken me up in the middle of the night to ask for my opinion before he takes a step?, and would not do something I am totally against. You think this man made it in this life without his wife contributing one way or the other?? Or is contribution based on finance alone?puhleaseeee

MRbrownJAY:

unfortunate people like you will always fail in life because you only look as far as your own aaaassss...... and talk about nonsense you have no clue about. you look at this issue, then see this amount that you FULLY WELL KNOW you will/can never earn (even if you lived to be 500yrs old), and then simply say that is too much for his wife to get........ not using what you have between your ears to understand that it is not about the amount but about a share of what she helped this man build (or in some cases, it is simply THE LAW). dismissing her contribution to his life, simply because she wasnt in the board meetings with him, is not only primitive but also very archaic! i guess in your part of the jungle, your partner is only swinging from trees, hollering for your attention while not contributing an ounce to the betterment of your life, lol!

whether he made millions or TRILLIONS sef, the facts remains that THE LAW says the wife deserves her fair share. you can go bust a vein all you want, the LAW will remain the same.

1 billion like.take am




e muaaaaahhhhhhh :*

jennykadry: Good for her. You think it's only the richest person amongst a couple that has a brain that has helped make them who they are. Married for how many years and the yeye man wanted to leave her high and dry.

Look I am not here to argue but I will speak for myself here, do you know how many times I have used my own "intelligence" to stop my husband from making a huge mistake in business, do yous know how many times he's woke me up in the middle of the night to ask for my opinion before he takes a step?, and would not do something I am totally against. You think this man made it in this life without his wife contributing one way or the other?? Or is contribution based on finance alone?puhleaseeee

no mind them.they think say na only them dey wise.when they come outside,they will be forming mr macho abi mr embodiment of all knowledge

MRbrownJAY:

where did you read that? abeg gp get some English comprehension lessons before coming to some discussions on NL.



sadly, you should understand that it take a lot of TIME and ENERGY to care and sustain a healthy marriage. you certainly cannot do it ALONE. if a man has to care for A HOME, CHILDREN etc then chances are, he wont have the time to fully do his duties at work (unless you expect others to raise his children). but hey, i guess in your world, an uneducated dumb aaasss maid can raise your children, right?!



open your mind instead of thinking like a donkey, this thread is about MARRIAGE LIFE and the subsequent DIVORCE, so A) nobody gives a damn about single men's (or women's) life because Oprah is also single yet as a woman can make make billions on "her own", and B) if a man gets married then he has to listen to the input of his wife, as this is what happens when you join a MATRIMONIAL UNION. you may not have to do and follow everything she has to say , BUT you sure have to take her input into consideration, duh!



I couldnt care less what you or others believe, what is important here (and you fail to understand) is that THIS IS THE LAW and you have to agree with it or move to the bloody jungle and settle in the highest tree (or have a tight prenup before getting married).



when you go for these English comprehension lesson i told you earlier, then come back and make a sentence that we can understand .... because i am very sorry but i dont understand GIBBERISH!

@Bawss1
you must have misunderstood my post, the contribution of a woman CANNOT be quantified, unless both partner bring exactly the same thing to the union......sadly because most dont, we must take everything that the union generated during marriage, and split it evenly and fairly. yes, some people will be quick to say that a woman's contribution is less than a man's (to each their own), but THE LAW says otherwise. so again, anyone who has a problem with this issue should either NEVER get married OR have a tight prenup, EOD!

you couldnt have said it any better.your head is correct

LMAO! Some women always love to feel too important. So because you gave your husband a little business advice, you deserve 17 million pounds? Lol, why don't you take over the business or start your own multimillion dollar business with all your business acumen?

Look for the nearest wall in your present location and "knack" your head on it

kulyie: no mind them.they think say na only them dey wise.when they come outside,they will be forming mr macho abi mr embodiment of all knowledge

All my business ideas cannot go to waste

MRbrownJAY:
@Bawss1
you must have misunderstood my post, the contribution of a woman CANNOT be quantified, unless both partner bring exactly the same thing to the union......sadly because most dont, we must take everything that the union generated during marriage, and split it evenly and fairly. yes, some people will be quick to say that a woman's contribution is less than a man's (to each their own), but THE LAW says otherwise. so again, anyone who has a problem with this issue should either NEVER get married OR have a tight prenup, EOD!

You believe that a wife's contribution in a marriage cannot be financially quantified but you agree that she is entitled to half of the man's wealth(which is a specific sum)? How does that work?

Here's my position: attempting to monetize a partner's effort in a marriage is futile and goes against logic and fundamental justice. The marriage per se was not a business endeavor unless that was otherwise stated. The ex wife, will fail to show how her being in the union lead to the man's financial profit and increased wealth because these are two unrelated areas. Imagine a parent who demands that he is entitled to half of his billionaire son's wealth just because he raised him. That same awkwardness is what is playing out here.

This judgement remains an exploitation of civil law. The woman's lawyers were smart enough to argue out their aim successfully and so it stands. Because much of the law in these matters are skewed towards the woman, any man who is worried about this should hire very smart lawyers who can outwit the system, this unfortunately is what it boils down to.

It will be very easy for one to think that the lesson here is that one can get away with anything just as long as one is smart but a deeper sense of morals tells otherwise. . .

jennykadry:

All my business ideas cannot go to waste

before nko,i trust you jare.mo jeri e ju

Bawss1:

You believe that a wife's contribution in a marriage cannot be financially quantified but you agree that she is entitled to half of the man's wealth(which is a specific sum)? How does that work?

Here's my position: attempting to monetize a partner's effort in a marriage is futile and goes against logic and fundamental justice. The marriage per se was not a business endeavor unless that was otherwise stated. The ex wife, will fail to show how her being in the union lead to the man's financial profit and increased wealth because these are two unrelated areas. Imagine a parent who demands that he is entitled to half of his billionaire son's wealth just because he raised him. That same awkwardness is what is playing out here.

This judgement remains an exploitation of civil law. The woman's lawyers were smart enough to argue out their aim successfully and so it stands. Because much of the law in these matters are skewed towards the woman, any man who is worried about this should hire very smart lawyers who can outwit the system, this unfortunately is what it boils down to.

It will be very easy for one to think that the lesson here is that one can get away with anything just as long as one is smart but a deeper sense of morals tells otherwise. . .

tales by moonlight

Bawss1: You believe that a wife's contribution in a marriage cannot be financially quantified but you agree that she is entitled to half of the man's wealth(which is a specific sum)? How does that work?

FAIL #1
sadly you misunderstood that: a wife AND A HUSBAND's contribution cannot be quantified, so pls open your mind instead of only thinking about a man's point of view. the reason why the wealth they generated should be equally shared is because BOTH their contribution cannot be financially quantified, not just the wife.

Here's my position: attempting to monetize a partner's effort in a marriage is futile and goes against logic and fundamental justice. The marriage per se was not a business endeavor unless that was otherwise stated. The ex wife, will fail to show how her being in the union lead to the man's financial profit and increased wealth because these are two unrelated areas.

FAIL #2
the wife does NOT have to show anything, it is the HUSBAND who must show proof that his wife does not deserve whatever they both generated as a couple (aka ONE). this is where you are confusing yourself: they were married and thus ONE, they call themselves ONE, they acted and shared everything as ONE.....but yet, when they want to part ways, you want to now claim that she wasnt legally ONE. i am sorry to say that whatever they generated (as ONE) must be shared equally. but hey thats only my (and the LAW)'s view.

Imagine a parent who demands that he is entitled to half of his billionaire son's wealth just because he raised him. That same awkwardness is what is playing out here.

FAIL #3
how dare you want to compare the r/ship between a couple that "chose" to get married in holy matrimony, AND the r/ship between parents and their children?!?! a couple are building a family, and they are BOTH responsible for whatever happens in this family. a child is not responsible for anything with their parents (other than being respectful and kind towards them.)can children choose their parents before going into such parent/child relationship? can children "divorce" their parents if they decide to do so? parents only duty is to provide everything for their children until they are able to fly out the nest (or at least when they get to adulthood). parents can demand whatever they want from their children but, the only thing a child owe its parents is GRATITUDE, nada mas!

This judgement remains an exploitation of civil law. The woman's lawyers were smart enough to argue out their aim successfully and so it stands. Because much of the law in these matters are skewed towards the woman, any man who is worried about this should hire very smart lawyers who can outwit the system, this unfortunately is what it boils down to.

FAIL #4
are you now saying that the TOP lawyers that this billionaire guy hired were not able to prove (without any doubts) that this woman do not deserve what she asked for?! pls do not insult lawyers in such manner......if they lost it is because they were fighting a lost battle. simply accept it instead of coming up with nonsense of having good lawyers (as if this billionaire didnt hire the best lawyers money could buy)

It will be very easy for one to think that the lesson here is that one can get away with anything just as long as one is smart but a deeper sense of morals tells otherwise. . .

ULTIMATE FAIL
so after all these court proceedings, you still didnt learn anything?!
the lesson here should simply be:"if your wife ask you for less than 1% of the family wealth during divorce proceedings, ACCEPT IT with a smile"

MRbrownJAY:
FAIL #3
how dare you want to compare the r/ship between a couple that "chose" to get married in holy matrimony, AND the r/ship between parents and their children?!?! a couple are building a family, and they are BOTH responsible for whatever happens in this family. a child is not responsible for anything with their parents (other than being respectful and kind towards them.)can children choose their parents before going into such parent/child relationship? can children "divorce" their parents if they decide to do so? parents only duty is to provide everything for their children until they are able to fly out the nest (or at least when they get to adulthood). parents can demand whatever they want from their children but, the only thing a child owe its parents is GRATITUDE, nada mas!

Funny. Here you are maintaining child owes its father nothing but gratitude. . . I asked earlier that can a father demand to be entitled to his wealthy son's fortune? After all the father or parents chose to have the son, they fulfilled their obligations as dutiful parents and raised him the best they could.

I wish I could quote you some more alas I am using a mobile and doing so is too much of a hassle.

Anyways

You are yet to show what part of the ex wife's contribution in marriage led to the wealth of the man. Unless there was some specific or direct input she had in growing the business then this is a case of reaping where one did not sow.

Flip the coin in a macabre way and tell me how the "she is entitled to whatever the union produced" still holds: imagine this scenario; a married man goes out and commits a crime , the wife should be held partly responsible for the man's offence after all she is signed to a life union with the man. They are ONE, not so? She should do jail time too right? But we all know that is absurd and the law will never come after the wife unless she was in some way involved.

In this instance where instead of a crime being committed the man generates wealth then she is now entitled to part of the wealth?

These laws are flawed and will continue to be exploited by people who can benefit from them. Untill this realisation has taken root we will continue to see similar judgements like this.

Isnt it absurd that the only thing you owe the parents who fed him solely for the first 20yrs of his life, Sent him to school and trained him to make that money is Gratitude

But the woman he met 5yrs ago, he owes half of his wealth to?

If the wife deserves half of his fortune due to her advice, Does she also deserve half of his jail term or why isnt Bernie Maddof wife sharing jail time with him.

Michael Jackson doctor, Conrad Murray, the money he makes from treating Jackson lets say 100m his wife deserves half, Does the wife also deserves half of the Jail term he is enjoying now.

If a man goes bankrupt and his assets are to be auctioned to pay creditors, Would they also auction those of the wife too, Including the car and jewelries she bought herself from her money while in the marriage.

Since the wealth they made positive and negative should be split equally?

The law is flawed and doesn't justify this woman stealing off her husband, its like a Saudi man saying its justified to behead a woman for not covering her head

hmmm.......see logic...
i have to give this 50+ likes
Not applicable to us the masses but if i get to this point in my second life, i will defo have a prenup

dayokanu: Isnt it absurd that the only thing you owe the parents who fed him solely for the first 20yrs of his life, Sent him to school and trained him to make that money is Gratitude

But the woman he met 5yrs ago, he owes half of his wealth to?

If the wife deserves half of his fortune due to her advice, Does she also deserve half of his jail term or why isnt Bernie Maddof wife sharing jail time with him.

Michael Jackson doctor, Conrad Murray, the money he makes from treating Jackson lets say 100m his wife deserves half, Does the wife also deserves half of the Jail term he is enjoying now.

If a man goes bankrupt and his assets are to be auctioned to pay creditors, Would they also auction those of the wife too, Including the car and jewelries she bought herself from her money while in the marriage.

Since the wealth they made positive and negative should be split equally?

The law is flawed and doesn't justify this woman stealing off her husband, its like a Saudi man saying its justified to behead a woman for not covering her head

Bawss1:
Funny. Here you are maintaining child owes its father nothing but gratitude. . . I asked earlier that can a father demand to be entitled to his wealthy son's fortune? After all the father or parents chose to have the son, they fulfilled their obligations as dutiful parents and raised him the best they could.

here is where you are missing the point: the child never entered into any UNION with their parents, they were "unwillingly" thrown into it. focus on what you wrote carefully..........parents CHOSE to have a son, not the way around. so why would you even compare the two?! anyone who takes the mature decisione to have a child MUST provide for that said child in every way possible, thats the damn deal!

You are yet to show what part of the ex wife's contribution in marriage led to the wealth of the man. Unless there was some specific or direct input she had in growing the business then this is a case of reaping where one did not sow.

bro none of us know the details of that case, we can only go by the judges decision, but here is a simple clue: "even" if her contribution was just to fukc this guy every night to take away the stress that he was getting from work, then that would be her contribution and it would be RIGHT and WORTHY. furthermore, let us all not forget that if her contribution to his life/family was not NECESSARY then he wouldnt have married her, duh!

Flip the coin in a macabre way and tell me how the "she is entitled to whatever the union produced" still holds: imagine this scenario; a married man goes out and commits a crime , the wife should be held partly responsible for the man's offence after all she is signed to a life union with the man. They are ONE, not so? She should do jail time too right? But we all know that is absurd and the law will never come after the wife unless she was in some way involved.
In this instance where instead of a crime being committed the man generates wealth then she is now entitled to part of the wealth?

come on bro this is a nonsense comparison, you cannot compare a crime with family wealth settlements, lol! but here is what should make you understand that the LAW is fair: lets say a huge loan was taken by the family (both parent's name on application), and suddenly the husband loses his job and wealth and they cannot repay the loan any longer. do you think the bank will only go after the husband "since he was the one making most of the cheddar"?! lol, sadly not, they will go after BOTH parents, because everything generated during their union (whether debts or wealth) will have to be shared.

These laws are flawed and will continue to be exploited by people who can benefit from them. Untill this realisation has taken root we will continue to see similar judgements like this.

probably, so therefore you should agree with MBJ that anyone who are against these laws should either NOT get married or have a tight prenup.....et voila!

dayokanu: Isnt it absurd that the only thing you owe the parents who fed him solely for the first 20yrs of his life, Sent him to school and trained him to make that money is Gratitude

what else would you expect from your children but gratitude?!

But the woman he met 5yrs ago, he owes half of his wealth to?

yes, HALF of what was generated during their union......... unless a prenup was in place! this was a PARTNERSHIP (unlike a father-child r/ship) and like any partnership, you share everything generated during that partnership when you part ways. if everyone thought the wrong way you guys do then, we should foolishly also say that:"if a wife contributes solely to the raising of a child, she will solely own that child after divorce?!"

If the wife deserves half of his fortune due to her advice, Does she also deserve half of his jail term or why isnt Bernie Maddof wife sharing jail time with him.

nonsense again, you are here talking of a crime. something that CANNOT be compared to marriage and divorce!!

Michael Jackson doctor, Conrad Murray, the money he makes from treating Jackson lets say 100m his wife deserves half, Does the wife also deserves half of the Jail term he is enjoying now.

the crime that was committed has nothing to do with the wealth/debts that the family generated.

If a man goes bankrupt and his assets are to be auctioned to pay creditors, Would they also auction those of the wife too, Including the car and jewelries she bought herself from her money while in the marriage.Since the wealth they made positive and negative should be split equally?

of course THEY WILL, educate yourself on the matter. if the business was a family business (even though wifey stayed at home) then everything belonging to the family will be confiscated, not only what is on the husband's name.
everything generated (or paid for) through the family business revenue will be confiscated. so whether the car is on wifey's name or not is irrelevant. how easy would it to just put everything on your wife's name and then not be accountable any longer for your debts, BWAAAAAAAH! wake up bro!

The law is flawed and doesn't justify this woman stealing off her husband, its like a Saudi man saying its justified to behead a woman for not covering her head

its flawed TO YOU, and you are entitled to your opinion, but then DO NOT GET MARRIED UNDER SUCH LAW or get a tight prenup.
as for the law in Saudia Arabia, again, if you are against such laws then either DONT GO BREAKING THE LAW THERE, or simply DONT GO THERE, et voila, but if you break the law then you must be prosecuted and punished according to the local law.

MRbrownJAY:
of course THEY WILL, educate yourself on the matter. if the business was a family business (even though wifey stayed at home) then everything belonging to the family will be confiscated, not only what is on the husband's name.

This particular scenario

Is the business that generated the Billions a family business?

MRbrownJAY:
nonsense again, you are here talking of a crime. something that CANNOT be compared to marriage and divorce!!



the crime that was committed has nothing to do with the wealth/debts that the family generated.

The crime was commited in the process of generating income. if wealth was created they split it and the woman deserves it because of the "emotional support" she was rendering, Shouldnt the same hold if an infraction of the law occurs as a result of her "Emotional support" too

Why should they share the benefit of her emotional support and not the baggages that come with it

dayokanu:

This particular scenario

Is the business that generated the Billions a family business?

it doesnt matter whether it is a family business or not....if hubby was married and then he goes bankrupt for whatever reason, then ALL THE FAMILY ASSETS will be confiscated.
go look at Maddoff's case and see if his wife kept some billions, lol, everything she owned was auctioned off to repay victims of her husband's scam! even some of his children's possessions were confiscated (if proven that they were a direct result/proceed from the scam).

dayokanu:
The crime was commited in the process of generating income. if wealth was created they split it and the woman deserves it because of the "emotional support" she was rendering, Shouldnt the same hold if an infraction of the law occurs as a result of her "Emotional support" too

Why should they share the benefit of her emotional support and not the baggages that come with it

unless she was KNOWINGLY and DIRECTLY helping him doing this crime, there is no reason why she should share any of it. this is a crime which has nothing to do with family and divorce. a crime is not considered family proceeds, come on now!

MRbrownJAY:

unless she was KNOWINGLY and DIRECTLY helping him doing this crime, there is no reason why she should share any of it. this is a crime which has nothing to do with family and divorce. a crime is not considered family proceeds, come on now!

If she was KNOWINGLY and DIRECTLY(emotional support) help him make money to deserve half the fortunes why Should she be KNOWINGLY and DIRECTLY involved in the risk that comes with the job

As the case of Conrad Murray

dayokanu:
If she was KNOWINGLY and DIRECTLY(emotional support) help him make money to deserve half the fortunes why Should she be KNOWINGLY and DIRECTLY involved in the risk that comes with the job

As the case of Conrad Murray

Murray did a criminal act that has nothing to do with his duties as a husband nor as a doctor, so wifey cannot be held responsible for that...... just like if a man works at the bank and decides to steal the money there, his wife would not be responsible for his criminal act (as this is not part of what his job description is all about) but she certainly should stand by him, and bring him oranges, if/when he ends up in jail (aka emotional support)!

but if the wife knows that her husband is a thief and help him in his criminal enterprise then she should be held responsible too.

MRbrownJAY:

Murray did a criminal act that has nothing to do with his duties as a husband nor as a doctor, so wifey cannot be held responsible for that...... just like if a man works at the bank and decides to steal the money there, his wife would not be responsible for his criminal act (as this is not part of what his job description is all about) but she certainly should stand by him, and bring him oranges, if/when he ends up in jail (aka emotional support)!

but if the wife knows that her husband is a thief and help him in his criminal enterprise then she should be held responsible too.

if Murray was not caught and brought in the proceeds of the crime the Wife has a right to split it right?

Or if the Bank manager was not caught the wife has a right to the money, but whenever he is caught she doesnt have a right to the jailterm

MRbrownJAY: SAGAMITE, come hear good news o, BWAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!!
too bad Sagamite is no longer here, he would have cried his eyes out on this one. now all the fools who where saying that she would never get the money can go rest in peace.

here is the heavy fail of the day: she wanted $21Million (£13.5Million), the husband refused and went to appeal the judgment, but now has to pay £17,5Million ($26.5Million).....so trying to outsmart his wife, he lost $5Millions to her. PRICELESS!!!!

U are forgetting legal fees plus fees for trying the case. Since he is the richer one the bill goes to him (shakes head)

This is Samuel Peters in his line of duty making money.

How much support of this does Mrs Peter support him to deserve half of his wealth

[img]http://thebluecorner.files./2008/11/samuelpeter1.jpg[/img]

Or Mr Vargas below

MRbrownJAY:

Murray did a criminal act that has nothing to do with his duties as a husband nor as a doctor, so wifey cannot be held responsible for that...... just like if a man works at the bank and decides to steal the money there, his wife would not be responsible for his criminal act (as this is not part of what his job description is all about) but she certainly should stand by him, and bring him oranges, if/when he ends up in jail (aka emotional support)!

but if the wife knows that her husband is a thief and help him in his criminal enterprise then she should be held responsible too.

Apples and oranges now.

You now agree that the actions of the man in his business are unrelated to his responsibilies as a husband because here a crime has been committed and it comes with punitive consequencies?

This whole settlement thing is one of the issues we have to live with unless something is done about it. It's just like gay marriage, that the law endorses it doesn't stop it from being an aberration.