Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...

[Coito ergo sum]

Time for this bullshit to stop, methinks.

Russell Brand is set to make up to £20million from his divorce from wife Katy Perry, according to reports.
The comedian is in line for the huge lump sum in a 50/50 split of the couple's earnings even after just 14 months of marriage.
Brand, 36, and Perry, 27, didn't sign a pre-nuptial agreement when they married in October 2010 so under Californian law, he could be entitled to half of her fortune

.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/ar ... z1iJbqOxdi

Well, they were stupid for not getting prenuptual agreements and getting married and divorced in California. But, for crying out loud...I mean 14 months of marriage, 1/2 of which was probably spent fucking other people, and Brand would be entitled to half?

Well, it does illustrate the horrid and redistributive nature of divorce laws in states like California. These folks have every ability to determine what they had coming into the marriage and what was accumulated during the marriage, and neither one can make the case (I believe) that the other "sacrificed" in some respect to support the career of the other.

This is bollocks, and it is bollocks when the sexes are reversed too.

[maiforpeace]

Lucky Russell.

I don't see much unfairness in having to live on 30 million instead of 60 million. She was 25 when she married...I have no doubts plenty of legal council advised her to get a pre-nup, especially since she was getting ready to go on tour.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes, well, I have no doubt, and she is responsible to be aware of the law. I think she was stupid in not having a prenup. However, I still think California law on that topic is idiotic. There has to be a better way.

But, I suppose the lawyers make out nicely, with that pot of billable hours justifying the min-war between Perry and Brand.

[MrJonno]

Brand is worth about $12 million himself its not like he is a penniless gold digger

[Horwood Beer-Master]

...I don't see much unfairness in having to live on 30 million instead of 60 million...

This.

[Coito ergo sum]

Lucky Russell.

I don't see much unfairness in having to live on 30 million instead of 60 million..

There isn't an inherent unfairness in "having" $X instead of $X-$Y. The unfairness lies in one person taking $X from another person for no good reason. Bill Gates wouldn't miss $100 bill too much, but it would be unfair for someone to lift it from his wallet.

[Callan]

Meh.

If she wanted to protect her fortune, the kid had ample access to the legal means of doing so. She chose not to.
Meh.
It's not like the wicked cad ran off and left her with six babies and facing a life-sentence in the Marshalsea for debt.
I'm sure she'll manage admirably on her 'reduced' income.

[Bella Fortuna]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

[MrJonno]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

Or just blinded by love which can make a fool out of anyone

[Bella Fortuna]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

Or just blinded by love which can make a fool out of anyone

Heck yeah, I know. "It could never happen to us" is almost a guarantee that it will!

[Callan]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

Or just blinded by love which can make a fool out of anyone

Testify, brother!

[Coito ergo sum]

Well, clearly, ignorance of the law is no excuse. However, it is the law that I'm taking issue with. I don't think it SHOULD be the case that a woman who earns millions as an entertainer should have to share it with someone else in this situation. The law should take into account when a couple hasn't had one person sacrifice to further the other's career or focus on raising children, etc.

The whole reason why it was deemed acceptable to have a wife be granted 1/2 of the man's earnings during the marriage is because the situation was that she would forgo economic opportunity to focus on other familial issues. Therefore, her contribution was necessary to the family, and allowed the breadwinner to focus on earning money.

In the case of folks like Brand and Perry, that didn't happen. He focused on his career, and she hears, and neither of them sacrificed. The marriage was short term, and it's just a windfall to him of money he never earned and never did anything to facilitate.

It's an injustice, regardless of how easily or not easily she'll manage.

The supermarket will manage just fine without this sack of potatoes, therefore, it's o.k. to just grab-and-go and avail oneself of a five-fingered discount.

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

As are people who walk in the city alone with a wad of cash in their pocket. They don't deserve to have it taken away from them without reason, though.

[Coito ergo sum]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

Or just blinded by love which can make a fool out of anyone

The only explanation for her choice of Russell Brand is that Katy Perry is both blind and deaf.

[Bella Fortuna]

Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.

As are people who walk in the city alone with a wad of cash in their pocket. They don't deserve to have it taken away from them without reason, though.

I agree.