Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'After Hours Lounge (Off Topic)' started by Chu Gai, May 23, 2006.
but you will now. http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/05/17/mccartney.legal.ap/
All I can say is ouch.
How dare she, she is only his wife.
The marriage should be annulled for incapacity because OBVIOUSLY McCartney was out of his F*CKING mind....
We'll it's not like after any settlement he's going to be out on the streets. I'd be more pissed if I was one of his kids though.
I kind of think every couple should get a pre-nup though and amend it every few years. In reality, it's the average Joe's that need it the most.
How did she earn any of this money? He deserves to lose half for being so fucking stupid, but how on earth is she entitled to anything?
Somewhere, I'm sure Yoko Wacko Ono is laughing...
Yes, I'm sure Sir Paul, who will soon be so alone, will be unable to generate the kind of income he was making when he had her sage guidance to rely upon.
It's strange...the reason she gets half his money is because (as the courts put it) she gets 'used' to a certain lifestyle and that is where the money 'reward' comes from. They think it's not fair that she go from all that money, to nothing.
I don't get it! Why does that only work with marriage? If I get fired from my job, why do I get a pittly 'unemployment check'? Why don't I get half my salary? I mean, my company got me used to a certain amount of income and now they expect me to give it all up just because I am no longer a good match for the company???
As a guideline, I woud think she would be entitled to half of their earnings during the 4 years they were together, no?
That would be far more reasonable. As to what she's looking for, she doesn't have a leg to stand on. I tell you, when you remove meat from your diet, you just don't think the same.
That's mean .
This whole situation has me stumped.
I mean, I never pegged her for the love 'em and leave 'em type.
-insert rimshot here-
The article in question only states the possibilities if there were to be a full divorce battle in the courts. But for all we know, they might have already arrived at an agreement before even contacting the lawyers. In fact, what would happen if she decided to only take a reasonable amount? What new stories will the media invent to explain the low amount aside from the very possibility that they really wanted to make the divorce as amicable as possible, and she wasn't going to let excessive greed get in the way?
I'm gonna wait this one out. Remember McCartney's first marriage? "T'ill Death Do Us Part". Unheard of in the entertainment industry! There might be a few surprises in store with this divorce.
Good point. Half of what he made while they were together, MINUS everything she acquired due to his money (ie. food, shopping, vacations, etc.).
Heh, her attorney has a huge stake in this also.
If it turns out she only gets half of everything while they were together, can you imagine the accountants/bookkeeping involved to sort this all out?
I understand Philip. She'll make out fabulously and be skipping to the bank because she knows that Sir Paul will be too much of a reserved gentleman who'll think nothing of letting her playing footloose with his earnings. Were he more clear headed at the outset, he'd have spoken to someone like Donald Trump and then he'd have a leg up on the situation. For his children, and us for that matter, I think we all knew that even while love was being professed, she already had one leg out the door. It was only a matter of time before she'd be slip sliding away and soon be doing the Hokey Pokey.
That's how I understood the situation to be from a recent segment on BBC discussing the possible scenarios. They did however mention that McCartney had earned over $400 million since they were married, so we are still talking about a large sum of money. Of course, this doesn't even include any alimony and child support which depending on how the divorce plays out could end up being very high.
Oh, and let's not forget all the legal fees!
Half of what was made during the marriage makes more sense and I can't see the courts not going that route no matter what her attorneys might argue.
I don't have any real interest in Mills either way, but she doesn't seem the type to demand an excessive settlement. I believe she was fairly well off on her own before meeting him, and she never came off, to me at least, as 'look at me, i'm rich now'.
I'm betting on it being amicable.
Until it becomes a question of custody over their baby daughter, which I believe it has been hinted that it is going to be an issue.