MRbrownJAY: is the guy really a "billionaire" in £, $ or € ?! meaning wealth of over 1000 millions in any of these currency?!
if it is so then he should quickly settle and pay up the 21milla which is clearly CHICKEN CHANGE, unless heis not as wealthy as he claims to be.


(sorry i couldnt read through 9 pages of replies)

Money he worked for all his life. He should give away part of it? Haaa. Never. One stupid woman would now want to have £21M because of marriage and kids.What right does she have for her to be entitled to even £1M? Marriage? so i will continue to work while she will continue take my money and cruising about.. This rubbish law would be removed one day. Its ridiculous.

MRbrownJAY: is the guy really a "billionaire" in £, $ or € ?! meaning wealth of over 1000 millions in any of these currency?!
if it is so then he should quickly settle and pay up the 21milla which is clearly CHICKEN CHANGE, unless heis not as wealthy as he claims to be.


(sorry i couldnt read through 9 pages of replies)

Hi Mrbrownjay, I sent you an email but I am guessing you didn't receive it. Your attention is needed here- https://www.nairaland.com/992476/nairalands-literary-debating-day-cordially

Thanks!

Sagamite: Why?

bro, it is a business transaction, and thats the easiest (and cheapest) way to solve the problem at hand.......
12millions would be about 2% of your wealth (if he was worth 1 billion), so i dont know about you, but thats a "more than fair" price to pay to the mother of your 4kids (drama free)

Sky-walker:

Money he worked for all his life. He should give away part of it? Haaa. Never. One stupid woman would now want to have £21M because of marriage and kids.What right does she have for her to be entitled to even £1M? Marriage? so i will continue to work while she will continue take my money and cruising about.. This rubbish law would be removed one day. Its ridiculous..

bro, no matter how we want to look at it, you will have to help the lady out to resettle (unless you want her to live in some shack in the forest with YOUR four kids?).... now i would cry foul like you if she demanded HALF or even 20%.....but 2% is not that much of a settlement, and this greedy man should have settled quickly, and be dopne with the gangrene.

Cuddlemii:
Hi Mrbrownjay, I sent you an email but I am guessing you didn't receive it. Your attention is needed here- https://www.nairaland.com/992476/nairalands-literary-debating-day-cordially

Thanks!

i received the notification on NL, but didnt receive any email....

MRbrownJAY: ^^ bro, it is a business transaction, and thats the easiest (and cheapest) way to solve the problem at hand.......
12millions would be about 1% of your wealth (if he was worth 1 billion), so i dont know about you, but thats a "more than fair" price to pay to the mother of your 4kids (drama free)

If he is going to be "more than fair" that should be his decision. The justice system should be fair, not more than fair. Based on fairness, the wife should live with what she is worth based on her contribution, irrespective of his wealth. If he wants to be more than fair, then it should be up to him to decide to be more than fair and he has decided: "No".

He has already offered her more than she contributed and more than she has the ability to earn on her own. She should stop being greedy.

MRbrownJAY:
bro, no matter how we want to look at it, you will have to help the lady out to resettle (unless you want her to live in some shack in the forest with YOUR four kids?).... now i would cry foul like you if she demanded HALF or even 20%.....but 2% is not that much of a settlement, and this greedy man should have settled quickly, and be dopne with the gangrene.

She surely would not be living in a shack with the £2.5m lump sum and £35K a year he is offering. Not to talk of the fact she is also working and getting her own salary, you know.

There are people living very comfortable with a quarter of that in this same UK.

when is the trial gan sef? the guy is definitely losing the case . .

Sagamite:
If he is going to be "more than fair" that should be his decision. The justice system should be fair, not more than fair. Based on fairness, the wife should live with what she is worth based on her contribution, irrespective of his wealth. If he wants to be more than fair, then it should be up to him to decide to be more than fair and he has decided: "No".

here is something to consider.....does this "wise" business man think that he will get a better deal if this goes to court? a better deal than 2% of his total wealth to be paid to his wifey? no court in the world will grant such pittance, and he should know that.....so to settle for £21Milla is the best decision to be made, in this case.
you only have to look at what all these billionaires paid for their divorces to understand that he CANNOT win..... check Bernie Ecclestone settlement for a start.

He has already offered her more than she contributed and more than she has the ability to earn on her own. She should stop being greedy.

come on bro, you and i know that it has nothing to do with what she contributed, but more to do with all the years she has spent as this guy's wife. i am sorry to say that if you expect the best for your kids (aka a billionaire's kid upbringing) then they should be the same when they are at their moms.......unless you want them to live in some BS council flat in north London, with crack heads etc.

She surely would not be living in a shack with the £2.5m lump sum and £35K a year he is offering. Not to talk of the fact she is also working and getting her own salary, you know.
There are people living very comfortable with a quarter of that in this same UK.

there are people who are living with a tenth of that in the UK, so should that be a reason to make your kids suffer, just because you are bitter with their mum? £2.5 Million would just about buy you a big comfortable home in a "safe" area of London, with a big motor in the garage. as for the £35K, this is just an insult.

MRbrownJAY:

here is something to consider.....does this "wise" business man think that he will get a better deal if this goes to court? a better deal than 2% of his total wealth to be paid to his wifey? no court in the world will grant such pittance, and he should know that.....so to accept to pay 21Milla is the best decision to be made, in this case.

Well, the court is silly and the guy has decided to fight the silliness and seems to be doing a good job.

There needs to be a message sent out to gold diggers that some of us will not tolerate it and are stubborn enough to fight it.

MRbrownJAY:
come on bro, you and i know that it has nothing to do with what she contributed, but more to do with all the years she has spent as this guy's wife. i am sorry to say that if you expect the best for your kids (aka a billionaire's kid upbringing) then they should be the same when they are at their moms.......unless you want them to live in some BS council flat in north London, with crack heads etc.

I can guarantee you from the bottom of my heart that kids with access to £2.5m lump sum and £35K a year would not end up in a BS council flat with crack heads.

Not even in a top-range council flat with middle-class people. You should know the council will not offer them the accommodation in the first place.

In my view and based on my philosophy of raising kids, the best for the kids is not to spoil them. What kids need is love, rational comfort, boundaries and mentorship. You don't need the $1000 a day the greedy gold-digger is asking for to give those.

Why should she be rewarded for the years being his wife? What will be used to reward him for the years being her husband? .........Robbing him?

MRbrownJAY:
there are people who are living with a tenth of that in the UK, so should that be a reason to make your kids suffer, just because you are bitter with their mum? £2.5 Million would just about buy you a big comfortable home in a "safe" area of London, with a big motor in the garage. as for the £35K, is just an insult.

No child will suffer with £2.5m and £35K per year. Plus mummy's own salary.

This is not about being bitter with their mum. It is about their mum trying to use them to get money for herself. I can guarantee you most of the money will not be spent on the kids.

Another example is the lame excuse used by the courts to milk men: "The house should go to the wife in the best interest of the kids". If the house is to be used to raise the kids in the best interest of the kids, how come courts cannot make injunctions that once the kids are adults the house should go back to the possession of the husband?

Please lets cut this crap of using "best interest of the kids" to justify statutory, state-supported gold-digging.

Sagamite:

Millions of dollars are guaranteed and destined my way without a shadow of a doubt and it is due to my brain. I will not allow some moronic legal system tell me it was due to my marriage.

So how many millions?

I think I'm falling in infatuation

Ileke-IdI:


So how many millions?

I think I'm falling in infatuation

AHHH!!! Gold-digger!

That is when you will start emailing me and telling me you love me and have big bre[i]a[/i]sts and thick thighs.

Sagamite:

AHHH!!! Gold-digger!

That is when you will start emailing me and telling me you love me and have big bre[i]a[/i]sts and thick thighs.

and what makes you think I don't love you na?

Ileke-IdI:


and what makes you think I don't love you na?

When you are ready to jump on Okada with me to go to the farm at 5.30 in the morning, that is when I would know you love me.

Sagamite:

When you are ready to jump on Okada with me to go to the farm at 5.30 in the morning, that is when I would know you love me.

God forbid!!!

I'd rather jump on your private jet to go to your mansion with you?

MJB, by the way, £1.5m alone will buy you anywhere between 4-7 bedroom house in Maida Vale, Kingston, Hendon, Ealing, Chiswick, Epsom, Sunbury, Greenwich Village etc.

Quite choice areas without low-life crackheads.

I can't vouch for them not having rich crackheads though.

Ileke-IdI:


God forbid!!!

I'd rather jump on your private jet to go to your mansion with you?

Feel free.

As long as you don't dream of being awarded the private jet or the mansion when we decide to pack it up.

Sagamite:


Feel free.

As long as you don't dream of being awarded the private jet or the mansion when we decide to pack it up.

As long as I can go in and out of your acct anytime.

MRbrownJAY: is the guy really a "billionaire" in £, $ or € ?! meaning wealth of over 1000 millions in any of these currency?!
if it is so then he should quickly settle and pay up the 21milla which is clearly CHICKEN CHANGE, unless heis not as wealthy as he claims to be.


(sorry i couldnt read through 9 pages of replies)

Abi.

Ileke-IdI:


As long as I can go in and out of your acct anytime.

That will not be a problem as long as I have access to your milky way and backyard every night.

Ileke-IdI:


As long as I can go in and out of your acct anytime.

For where be ready to see a big padlock on the checking and savings account. (agadangodo) for sure.

Sagamite cannot be robbed.

ronkebp:

For where be ready to see a big padlock on the checking and savings account. (agadangodo) for sure.

Sagamite cannot be robbed.

Married woman, no come spoil my market o.

Sagamite:

That will not be a problem as long as I have access to your milky way and backyard every night.

See how you easy for me to steal from you everyday ($8000/day) and your rich self wouldn't even notice. lol

I don't even think the right world is "steal". I mean, my milky way and backyard keeps you energetic enough to bring in more millions, so it's like a mutual relationship. Half your millions is rightfully mines. I'm the one that keeps your head up high, the one that makes you feel good enough and the one that keeps you sane to do your business.

ronkebp:

For where be ready to see a big padlock on the checking and savings account. (agadangodo) for sure.

Sagamite cannot be robbed.

LOL don't worry. I know how to distract sagamite

Na to just the shake breasts anytime he tries to question me about some missing funds

Sagamite:
Well, the court is silly and the guy has decided to fight the silliness and seems to be doing a good job.
There needs to be a message sent out to gold diggers that some of us will not tolerate it and are stubborn enough to fight it.

he is going to lose the case, and spend much more money than what he initially was suppose to pay. bro, we are talking of 2% of this man's wealth (and thats ONLY if he was worth a mere £1billion). i dont think his wife is a gold digger, but even if she was, thats the price fools have to pay for not writing tight prenup. he took a gamble and lost, and now he wants to take another gamble?! remember that the wifey was asking for £40Milla, so the judgment "could possibly" go against him and raise up to whatever she was asking initially.

I can guarantee you from the bottom of my heart that kids with access to £2.5m lump sum and £35K a year would not end up in a BS council flat with crack heads.
Not even in a top-range council flat with middle-class people. You should know the council will not offer them the accommodation in the first place

recently i checked the housing market in London (one of the most overpriced in the world), and if thats where they intend to live, then they will need the best part of that £2.5 Million to secure a great home for this lady and her FOUR kids. let's remember that they would need to live in a safe, secure and decent environment deem fit for the children of a billionaire....also, you dont intend to send these kids go to some BS college in Streatham hills do you? so, as we know how much good schools cost in the UK, you should spare about £50K a year for all of these four kids (school fees, uniforms, school food, books, outings, pocket money etc) and i am generous!!!!...... if the lady didnt have any children with this billionaire, then i would understand to send her back where she came from, but you need to keep the standard of life that your children have, whether at mummy's or daddy's.

In my view and based on my philosophy of raising kids, the best for the kids is not to spoil them. What kids need is love, rational comfort, boundaries and mentorship. You don't need the $1000 a day the greedy gold-digger is asking for to give those.

whatever lifestyle these children had before the divorce, is what they should continue having, thats a very simple (and fair) policy.

Why should she be rewarded for the years being his wife? What will be used to reward him for the years being her husband? .........Robbing him?

the wifey is not really rewarded for the yrs that she sat down being pampered as the wife of a billionaire, most of this reward is for the UPKEEP and CARE for their kids. you need a similar decent place for them to live, you need to feed them whatever they ate before, you need to clothe them and give them the comfort that they had before..... this is a no brainer.
just because they live with their mother is the issue. if this husband can get to keep the kids then he wouldnt have to pay this lady that much.

No child will suffer with £2.5m and £35K per year. Plus mummy's own salary.

many children of billionaire would.......believe that, especially if they were fed in silver spoons before.

This is not about being bitter with their mum. It is about their mum trying to use them to get money for herself. I can guarantee you most of the money will not be spent on the kids.

yeah many women do use the money for themselves, but i doubt 2% is anything to brag about...and if the money is not spent on the kids, then let the guy sue her for that AFTERWARDS, but we cannot automatically say that this is what she is going to do with the money (thats like saying "all" ex wives use the settlement money on themselves rather than the kids....you know that aint true)

Another example is the lame excuse used by the courts to milk men: "The house should go to the wife in the best interest of the kids". If the house is to be used to raise the kids in the best interest of the kids, how come courts cannot make injunctions that once the kids are adults the house should go back to the possession of the husband?

Please lets cut this crap of using "best interest of the kids" to justify statutory, state-supported gold-digging.

he hands over the house to them so that they can stay in an environment that they are comfortable with (friends/school etc)......but if that guy rather pay the difference in CASH, then so be it....... she was awarded £20 Million settlememt in assets and cash, the house is irrelevant, as she could easily buy another one in the same area (if hubby really wants to keep the house)

Ileke-IdI:

LOL don't worry. I know how to distract sagamite

Na to just the shake breasts anytime he tries to question me about some missing funds

Yeeepaaa!!! the B- word, na for him to start to stutter....

Sagamite: Married woman, no come spoil my market o.

Lol.....no worry...i gat your back naa....

Ileke-IdI:



See how you easy for me to steal from you everyday ($8000/day) and your rich self wouldn't even notice. lol

I don't even think the right world is "steal". I mean, my milky way and backyard keeps you energetic enough to bring in more millions, so it's like a mutual relationship. Half your millions is rightfully mines. I'm the one that keeps your head up high, the one that makes you feel good enough and the one that keeps you sane to do your business.



LOL don't worry. I know how to distract sagamite

Na to just the shake breasts anytime he tries to question me about some missing funds

Kai! This girl don read me finish!

Sagamite:

Kai! This girl don read me finish!

ronkebp:

Yeeepaaa!!! the B- word, na for him to start to stutter....

Lol.....no worry...i gat your back naa....

LOL I trust sagamite nau

MRbrownJAY:

he is going to lose the case, and spend much more money than what he initially was suppose to pay. bro, we are talking of 2% of this man's wealth (and thats ONLY if he was worth a mere £1billion). i dont think his wife is a gold digger, but even if she was, thats the price fools have to pay for not writing tight prenup. he took a gamble and lost, and now he wants to take another gamble?! remember that the wifey was asking for £40Milla, so the judgment "could possibly" go against him and raise up to whatever she was asking initially.

I doubt he is going to lose because he seems to be as smart and stubborn as I am. I think he has hidden his wealth well and there is no way the court can determine it and he will fight it till she is completely exhausted.

Even when they award her any money, I am sure he will claim he does not have such sums to pay.

Mate, I would rather throw away my money than give it to someone that is not entitled to it who thinks they can threaten me that I will lose more if I don't give them what they are asking for.

MRbrownJAY:
recently i checked the housing market in London (one of the most overpriced in the world), and if thats where they intend to live, then they will need the best part of that £2.5 Million to secure a great home for this lady and her FOUR kids. let's remember that they would need to live in a safe, secure and decent environment deem fit for the children of a billionaire....also, you dont intend to send these kids go to some BS college in Streatham hills do you? so, as we know how much good schools cost in the UK, you should spare about £50K a year for all of these four kids (school fees, uniforms, school food, books, outings, pocket money etc) and i am generous!!!!...... if the lady didnt have any children with this billionaire, then i would understand to send her back where she came from, but you need to keep the standard of life that your children have, whether at mummy's or daddy's.

Mate, most part of London are safe, secure and decent. The ones that are not can be counted on the fingers of the hand.

I am sure one can buy a 8 bedroom house in Neasden for £1.5m and the area is very safe. I think you are mixing status up with safe.

The kids should continue going to the school and standard of schools they are already going to. If it is public, it should continue being public. If it is Eton, it should continue being Eton.

MRbrownJAY:
whatever lifestyle these children had before the divorce, is what they should continue having, thats a very simple (and fair) policy.

the wifey is not really rewarded for the yrs that she sat down being pampered as the wife of a billionaire, most of this reward is for the UPKEEP and CARE for their kids. you need a similar decent place for them to live, you need to feed them whatever they ate before, you need to clothe them and give them the comfort that they had before..... this is a no brainer.
just because they live with their mother is the issue. if this husband can get to keep the kids then he wouldnt have to pay this lady that much.

It is a fair policy if you have someone monitoring that the money being exploited is being used for that.

Otherwise, if such lifestyle is THAT important, pass the kids to the parent that can provide that lifestyle.

I don't believe in "the best interest of the kids" BS policy. I believe in the "balance of best interest of and fairness to all parties involved" policy.

MRbrownJAY:
many children of billionaire would.......believe that, especially if they were fed in silver spoons before.

No!

There standard of life will just drop slightly. They will not suffer. If you want to know suffering, go to East Africa or Makoko.

Furthermore, it is not the place of the courts or the State to dictate what standard of life children should have. That should be left to parents as long as it is above a basic threshold.

MRbrownJAY:
yeah many women do use the money for themselves, but i doubt 2% is anything to brag about...and if the money is not spent on the kids, then let the guy sue her for that AFTERWARDS, but we cannot automatically say that this is what she is going to do with the money (thats like saying "all" ex wives use the settlement money on themselves rather than the kids....you know that aint true)

How would he prove it?

You think the Western courts have a process or care about that?

They are just happy robbing men because it has more political capital. He should fight it now, rather than later.

If the moronic Western government cared, there would have been request for invoices attached to large payouts in the first place. But let us not deceive ourselves, divorce laws in the West were, from conception, set up to be punitive and exploitative of men.

MRbrownJAY:
he hands over the house to them so that they can stay in an environment that they are comfortable with (friends/school etc)......but if that guy rather pay the difference in CASH, then so be it....... she was awarded £20 Million settlememt in assets and cash, the house is irrelevant, as she could easily buy another one in the same area (if hubby really wants to keep the house)

And when the kids grow up and they and their friends leave school and move on, why is there no law for the house to be given back to the person that paid for it then? How come the women owns it?

^^^^ bro Saga
my stand on the issue is VERY simple........if a man has money before he enters into a marriage then he should be entitled to EVERY PENNY he had before, and the wifey ZERO (from that wealth). but if he was dead broke before marriage, then married this gal and, during that marriage made gazillions, then she should be entitled to part of that money. yes, he was the one at work but she was there with him when he came back home to soothe his mind and life....she was part of the reason why he was the way he was at work. having a wifey/partner to ease your mind after work, and help you relax and talk, chill and get better for the next day, counts for a lot in your success.

there is NO WAY in hell this man will either A) win the appeal B) hide any money (that wasnt hidden beforehand) or C) get away with paying up the full amount awarded.....none whatsoever, unless he is willing and stoopid enough to crash run his billion dollar company to the ground, in order not to pay £21Million (a business move that would makes ABSOLUTELY no sense!)

if you rather thrown money away than pay 2% of your wealth to the mother of your four kids, then it says a lot about how bitter you are about this woman......and you should rather focus on the wellbeing of your kids.

i doubt they were living in Neasden, but if they did then fair enough.

if the father NEVER cared for the daily upkeep of the kids, then i see no reason why he SUDDENLY thinks he can/will/should. if he was at work all day while mummy was the one running the home (and the kids with it), then there is no way he will get the kids......(even if the servants were probably doing all the work.)

there is no reason why the children lifestyle should change, simply because daddy is bitter about mummy. come on bro, this school of thought is outdated!

if mummy does not use the funds awarded to her to care for the children as stated, then let hubby take her to court with proof at hand, end of story...... but let's not assume what she may or not do with this money.

the fact that daddy paid for the house is irrelevant again, as we all know that it was paid with money that he made while they were together as a unit.....just like he would deserve half if she suddenly wins the Euromillion (even if he didnt help in buying the ticket, or choose the number).
the fact that you believe that the wifey didnt contribute to their success whatsover is far fetched. even if she simply fukced him royally every night, then she did her duty to make this union propser, and therefore deserve to get her fair share of the money that was made during their union........ at least 20% of the total wealth (IMHO), and thats why i say that 2% is a bargain for this "billionaire".

MRbrownJAY: ^^^^ bro Saga
my stand on the issue is VERy simple........if a man has money before he enters into a marriage then he should be entitled to EVERY PENNY he had before, and the wifey ZERO (from that wealth), but if he was dead broke before marriage, then married this gal and, during that marriage made gazillions, then she should be entitled to part of that money. yes, he was the one at work hard but she was there with him when he came back home to sooth his mind and life....she was part of the reason why he was the way he was at work..... having a wifey/partner to ease your mind after work, and help you relax counts for a lot.

Bruv, I completely disagree with that philosophy.

The only ways a woman should be entitled to part of his money are:

1) He willingly wants to give it.
2) She contributed to the value of the part she is asking for.
3) There is proof that he would not have made the money without her.

So I don't buy that your argument he is the reason the way he was at work because of her. Rubbish!

He is most likely the way he is because of:

- His God-given personality and brains.
- His hard work.
- His preparation through the education his parents paid for and supported him through.
- The nurturing and mentorship his parents gave him.
- The networks and connections he made.

If she was not in his life , most likely he would still make his money, maybe even more because he would not have someone moaning for attention. Most times, most wives do not contribute as much as a hundredth of what parents do for people to guarantee their success, yet parents can not even go to court and claim a dime, yet you think a wife is ENTITLED to part of the money? Come off it, bruv.

MRbrownJAY:
there is NO WAY in hell this man will either A) win the appeal B) hide any money (that wasnt hidden beforehand) or C) get away with paying up the full amount awarded.....none whatsoever, unless he is willing and stoopid enough to crash run his billion dollar company to the ground, in order not to pay £21Million ( a business move that makes ABSOLUTELY no sense!

He seem to have already hidden it.

MRbrownJAY:
if you rather thrown money away than pay 2% of your wealth to the mother of your four kids, then it says a lot about how bitter you are about this woman......and should rather focus on the wellbeing of your kids.

I will not let a court dictate to me unjustly how to give my ex money and I would not let an ex-wife think she can milk me and punish me unjustly. If I was to give £21m, I will try to make it PURELY my choice, otherwise I would rather throw it away.

MRbrownJAY:
if the father NEVER cared for the daily upkeep of the kids, then i see no reason why he SUDDENLY thinks he can/will/should. if he was at work all day while mummy was the one running the home (and the kids with it), then there is no way he will get the kids......(even if the servants were probably doing all the work.

there is no reason why the children lifestyle should change, simply because daddy is bitter about mummy. come on bro, this school of thought is outdated!

I don't see why not, except there is proof that he would neglect it.

As I said, if the courts decide it is CRITICAL that they have a certain lifestyle, then it only makes sense to give them to the parent that can provide it.

MRbrownJAY:
the fact that daddy paid for the house is irrelevant again, as we all know that it was paid with money that he made while they were together as a unit.....just like he would deserve half if she suddenly wins the Euromillion (even if he didnt help in buying the ticket, or choose the number).
the fact that you believe that the wifey didnt contribute to their success whatsover is far fetched. even if she simply fukced him royally every night, then she did her duty to make this union propser, and therefore deserve to get her fair share of the money that was made during their union........ at least 20% (IMHO), and thats why i say that 2% is bargain for this "billionaire".

He shouldn't deserve half from her Euromillions. That is rubbish!

The fact he paid for the house is relevant. He WORKED HARD for it! And you think it is just to simply take it from him and give it to someone else that did not work for it?

People should be entitled to what they worked for and the ability they have.

I hope you are aware, under UK laws, she is not "entitled" to take on any debt that is solely in his name?

You can only prove to me that the wife contributed to the success if you can prove:

- She contributed to the labour (e.g. the wife of the person that owned BET TV)

OR

- Without her, there is no way he would have made the money. (e.g. David Beckham would not have made that much money if he did not marry Posh)

Simples!

So the money Zukerberg makes in 2013 is because he married the girl in 2012?

When he was already a billionaire befire marrying her?

The woman should only be entitled if she contributed to the business that made the money or she gave up her own career at the request of the man

dayokanu: So the money Zukerberg makes in 2013 is because he married the girl in 2012?

When he was already a billionaire befire marrying her?

The woman should only be entitled if she contributed to the business that made the money or she gave up her own career at the request of the man

I wonder o!

The logic just does not work at ALL.

The money Zuckerberg will make in 2013 is due to:

- His God-given personality and brains.
- His hardwork.
- His preparation through the education his parents paid for and supported him through.
- The nurturing and mentorship his parents gave him.
- The networks and connections he made.

Simples!

Sagamite:

Bruv, I completely disagree with that philosophy.

The only ways a woman should be entitled to part of his money are:

1) He willingly wants to give it.
2) She contributed to the value of the part she is asking for.
3) There is proof that he would not have made the money without her.

So I don't buy that your argument he is the reason the way he was at work because of her. Rubbish!

He is most likely the way he is because of:

- His God-given personality and brains.
- His preparation through the education his parents paid for and supported him through.
- The nurturing and mentorship his parents gave him.
- The networks and connections he made.

it is very simple, this man would have spent more time WORRYING about his children whereabouts, wellbeing etc if wifey was not there to SHARE the burden of raising children......so he would have spent less time making money at work, and more time at home spending time raising children...... unless you want to sit here and claim that he would have left his children care to maids and servants 24hrs a day while he spends his days at works?! meaning leaving your children to be raised by strangers, lol!

If she was not in his life , most likely he would still make his money, maybe even more because he would not have someone moaning for attention. Most times, most wives do not contribute as much as a hundredth of what parents do for people to guarantee their success, yet parents can not even go to court and claim a dime, yet you think a wife is ENTITLED to part of the money? Come off it, bruv.

assumptions again....... who said she was moaning? who said she didnt contribute to his well being after work? as much as we dont know much about this family history, we cant sit here and paint a black picture of what she did (or not do). there is a 50% chance that she is the reason he made millions because of how he could recharge his batteries after work, thanks to HER.

He seem to have already hidden it

if he did successfully then A) the court wouldnt have awarded such amount and B) he wouldnt try to come up with some BS "tribal" law about the company belonging to his family, lol!

I will not let a court dictate to me unjustly how to give my ex money and I would not let an ex-wife think she can milk me and punish me unjustly. If I was to give £21m, I will try to make it PURELY my choice, otherwise I would rather throw it away.

then bro, your only way out is to go and live in the jungle, because if you live in the real world then you would most definitely have to settle your wifey. your choice should be to be FAIR to the woman who was with you through the ups and downs..... and if you believe that giving 2% of your total wealth is NOT fair, then you are clearly living in lala land.

I don't see why not, except there is proof that he would neglect it.

so you mean you suddenly want to change the lifestyle of these kids?! if what was done before was perfectly fine, then there is no reason why it should change now that they are divorcing.

As I said, if the courts decide it is CRITICAL that they have a certain lifestyle, then it only makes sense to give them to the parent that can provide it.

the court would/should automatically decide that they have the EXACT same lifestyle that they had prior to divorce. why should it automatically change?! the kid should stay with the parent who was there for the kid all the time......and THEY (both parents) paid for the upbringing before the divorce, as i am sure it was from THEIR account, dont get it twisted.

He shouldn't deserve half from her Euromillions. That is rubbish!

sadly husband would deserve half of the money, because that is money she made while they were married and he is entiltled to his share.

People should be entitled to what they worked for and the ability they have.

people have their duties in a union and i dont think it is as easy as you want to make it......but the sad fact is that they wifey CONTRIBUTED to the wellbeing of this family, and that is part of the reason why this guy was the way he was. just like when you go to war, the soldiers are doing much more than what the cook in the unit did, but they ALL contributed to the victory. how can you claim that all what she did for the family is not even worth 2% of their wealth/success?!

You can only prove to me that the wife contributed to the success if you can prove:
- She contributed to the labour (e.g. the wife of the person that owned BET TV)
OR
- Without her, there is no way he would have made the money. (e.g. David Beckham would not have made that much money if he did not marry Posh)
Simples!

you are focussing on the MONEY, while disregarding the wellbeing of their home. YOU are the one who should prove that the wifey didnt contribute to ANYTHING in the wellbeing of their home, lol!

Sagamite:

I wonder o!

The logic just does not work at ALL.

The money Zuckerberg will make in 2013 is due to:

- His God-given personality and brains.
- His hardwork.
- His preparation through the education his parents paid for and supported him through.
- The nurturing and mentorship his parents gave him.
- The networks and connections he made.

Simples!

remember people, she shouldnt get money from the wealth that he already had before marriage, but she should certainly get a share of the income/profit he will make in 2013 from that wealth..... thats the law of marriage! if any of you brothas dont like it then you should A) not get married/settle with a lady or B) have a TIGHT prenup!

If the guy has made investment in his pre wedding days and he is just getting the returns after wedding, Should he share those proceeds?

MRbrownJAY:

it is very simple, this man would have spent more time WORRYING about his children whereabouts, wellbeing etc if wifey was not there to SHARE the burden of raising children......so he would have spent less time making money at work, and more time at home spending time raising children...... unless you want to sit here and claim that he would have left his children care to maids and servants 24hrs a day while he spends his days at works?! meaning leaving your children to be raised by strangers, lol!

No!

If the wife was not there, he would not have had children and would have had more time to make money. So she is not entitled to his money, maybe she needs to be compensating him instead.

Secondly, a woman should not be paid for taking care of her kids, kids she wanted and kids that she is going to get in a custody ruling. He most likely did her a favour giving her kids!

MRbrownJAY:
assumptions again....... who said she was moaning? who said she didnt contribute to his well being after work? as much as we dont know much about this family history, we cant sit here and paint a black picture of what she did (or not do). there is a 50% chance that she is the reason he made millions because of how he could recharge his batteries after work, thanks to HER.

Women moan! That is a fact!

Women demand and need attention. That is a fact!

What contribution did she make to his well being that has any impact on his ability to make his money? What CONTRIBUTIONS can she EVER make that can be on par with the ones his parents made, yet the parents can't claim a dime, why should she be able to?

There is less than 0.5% chance she is the reason he made his millions. He made his millions based on:

- His God-given personality and brains.
- His hardwork.
- His preparation through the education his parents paid for and supported him through.
- The nurturing and mentorship his parents gave him.
- The networks and connections he made.

Majority (probably 85%) of which can be attributed to his parents, not his wife! Under the law, can his parents come and ask for money? How come you think the wife should be able to? Just because some mooorons made the law?

MRbrownJAY:
if he did successfully then A) the court wouldnt have awarded such amount and B) he wouldnt try to come up with some BS "tribal" law about the company belonging to his family, lol!

It is still a court case and the court appear not to know his real worth.

MRbrownJAY:
then bro, your only way out is to go and live in the jungle, because if you live in the real world then you would most definitely have to settle your wifey. your choice should be to be FAIR to the woman who was with you through the ups and downs..... and if you believe that giving 2% of your total wealth is NOT fair, then you are clearly living in lala land.

In the real world, there are ways around it if you are smart enough. Trust me!

You just have to be aware and prepared and not live in some moronic lala land thinking you don't need prenup and bury your head in the sand that everything would be okay in marriage.

Fck that!

MRbrownJAY:
so you mean you suddenly want to change the lifestyle of these kids?! if what was done before was perfectly fine, then there is no reason why it should change now that they are divorcing.

the court would/should automatically decide that they have the EXACT same lifestyle that they had prior to divorce. why should it automatically change?! the kid should stay with the parent who was there for the kid all the time......and THEY (both parents) paid for the upbringing before the divorce, as i am sure it was from THEIR account, dont get it twisted.

If there is a divorce, their life will INEVITABLY change. It will not kill them. It is LIFE! Lets not play this BS "oh, kids" cards to favour one party.

They will never have exactly the same life after divorce and it will not kill them.

MRbrownJAY:
sadly husband would deserve half of the money, because that is money she made while they were married and he is entiltled to his share.

That law is RUBBISH!

MRbrownJAY:
people have their duties in a union and i dont think it is as easy as you want to make it......but the sad fact is that they wifey CONTRIBUTED to the wellbeing of this family, and that is part of the reason why this guy was the way he was. just like when you go to war, the soldiers are doing much more than what the cook in the unit did, but they ALL contributed to the victory. how can you claim that all what she did for the family is not even worth 2% of their wealth/success?!

you are focussing on the MONEY, while disregarding the wellbeing of their home. YOU are the one who should prove that the wifey didnt contribute to ANYTHING in the wellbeing of their home, lol!

Well, her contribution is not and WILL NEVER be worth £21m. She should get what she contributed and I am sure it is well below the offer he is making.

The way the guy is is DUE TO:

- His God-given personality and brains.
- His hardwork.
- His preparation through the education his parents paid for and supported him through.
- The nurturing and mentorship his parents gave him.
- The networks and connections he made.

Simples!

If she was not there, if he decided not to marry, it is most likely he would STILL have been able to make his money.

Her contribution is not key to the money he made.

I will say it again. It is:

- His God-given personality and brains.
- His hardwork.
- His preparation through the education his parents paid for and supported him through.
- The nurturing and mentorship his parents gave him.
- The networks and connections he made.

Simply simples, MJB!

MRbrownJAY:

remember people, she shouldnt get money from the wealth that he already had before marriage, but she should certainly get a share of the income/profit he will make in 2013 from that wealth..... thats the law of marriage! if any of you brothas dont like it then you should A) not get married/settle with a lady or B) have a TIGHT prenup!

Why should she get a share of his money in 2013?

Did she work for it?

Does she have the ability to make it on her own?

You think something is justified just because some buffoons made it law?