...and that goes for millionaires who could easily get along without it...Bella Fortuna wrote:I agree.Coito ergo sum wrote: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.Bella Fortuna wrote:Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.
Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
- Bella Fortuna
- Sister Golden Hair
- Posts: 79685
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
- About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require. - Location: Scotlifornia
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
Yes. 

Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
Bella Fortuna wrote:Yes.
Good answer!
Do you want to hear what my question was?

- Bella Fortuna
- Sister Golden Hair
- Posts: 79685
- Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 11:45 am
- About me: Being your slave, what should I do but tend
Upon the hours and times of your desire?
I have no precious time at all to spend,
Nor services to do, till you require. - Location: Scotlifornia
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
No.....? 

Sent from my Bollocksberry using Crapatalk.
Food, cooking, and disreputable nonsense: http://miscreantsdiner.blogspot.com/
- maiforpeace
- Account Suspended at Member's Request
- Posts: 15726
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
- Location: under the redwood trees
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
Well then maybe you may want to title your thread differently...like "Community Property Divorce laws suck" or something.Coito ergo sum wrote: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.

Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
The title is accurate, though, since he would be taking $30 million from Katy Perry.maiforpeace wrote:Well then maybe you may want to title your thread differently...like "Community Property Divorce laws suck" or something.Coito ergo sum wrote: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.
Community Property divorce laws don't suck in general, so that would be an overstatement and not the issue. It's the fact that the law is structured so poorly that a situation like this would be encompassed in community property, and not allowed for given the evident differences, that is problematic to me.
In the end, she snoozes, she loses - she should have had a pre-nup. That doesn't make Russell Brand taking $30 million from her "good" though.
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
Probably best....Bella Fortuna wrote:No.....?
...it would likely be considered an indecent suggestion...

- maiforpeace
- Account Suspended at Member's Request
- Posts: 15726
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
- Location: under the redwood trees
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
Well, divorces are filed in the jurisdiction where a married couple is domiciled, not where they were originally married if that is different than their present permanent residence. California community property law attaches to Indian marriages if the persons have lived in California long enough (usually, States require 6 months residence).maiforpeace wrote:BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.
- maiforpeace
- Account Suspended at Member's Request
- Posts: 15726
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 1:41 am
- Location: under the redwood trees
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
I doubt they lived together for six months...she was on tour the entire time. Why wouldn't they have filed in the UK, isn't that where Brand is from?Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, divorces are filed in the jurisdiction where a married couple is domiciled, not where they were originally married if that is different than their present permanent residence. California community property law attaches to Indian marriages if the persons have lived in California long enough (usually, States require 6 months residence).maiforpeace wrote:BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.
Atheists have always argued that this world is all that we have, and that our duty is to one another to make the very most and best of it. ~Christopher Hitchens~
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/379 ... 3be9_o.jpg[/imgc]
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
It's not about physical presence. It's about permanent residence - where your home is.maiforpeace wrote:I doubt they lived together for six months...she was on tour the entire time. Why wouldn't they have filed in the UK, isn't that where Brand is from?Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, divorces are filed in the jurisdiction where a married couple is domiciled, not where they were originally married if that is different than their present permanent residence. California community property law attaches to Indian marriages if the persons have lived in California long enough (usually, States require 6 months residence).maiforpeace wrote:BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.
Brand did the filing, so he filed in the jurisdiction that was best for him. California is best if you want to skin an estranged spouse.
I don't know if he could have filed in the UK at all, unless he could either establish required residence there, or if they don't have a residence requirement. However, if their marital home was in California, and if they identified their residence for say, drivers licenses, taxes, and other purposes as California, it becomes difficult to argue.
You can bet, if there is some way to establish residence in a jurisdiction where Katy Perry doesn't get fleeced, her attorneys will see if they can argue that jurisdiction or venue is properly somewhere else.
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41172
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
Unless she's as lousy at picking attorneys as she is at choosing spouses.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
-
- Posts: 32040
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
Maybe she just like ugly, effeminate men with child-bearing hips?Svartalf wrote:Unless she's as lousy at picking attorneys as she is at choosing spouses.
- Svartalf
- Offensive Grail Keeper
- Posts: 41172
- Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:42 pm
- Location: Paris France
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
who'll leave her and take her to the cleaners at earliest opportunity?
Heck, too bad I'm slim hipped and hairy.
Heck, too bad I'm slim hipped and hairy.
Embrace the Darkness, it needs a hug
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
PC stands for "Patronizing Cocksucker" Randy Ping
- hadespussercats
- I've come for your pants.
- Posts: 18586
- Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
- About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
- Location: Gotham
- Contact:
Re: Brand may take $30 million from Katy Perry...
There was reason, though. They got married, with is a legally binding economic arrangement. They didn't have to get married.Coito ergo sum wrote: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.Bella Fortuna wrote:Anyone who gets married without considering what divorce may cost you is a fool.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.
Listen. No one listens. Meow.
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.
Listen. No one listens. Meow.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests