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

[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.

I agree.

...and that goes for millionaires who could easily get along without it...

[Bella Fortuna]

Yes.

[Coito ergo sum]

Yes.

Good answer!

Do you want to hear what my question was?

[Bella Fortuna]

No.....?

[maiforpeace]

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.

Well then maybe you may want to title your thread differently...like "Community Property Divorce laws suck" or something.

[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.

Well then maybe you may want to title your thread differently...like "Community Property Divorce laws suck" or something.

The title is accurate, though, since he would be taking $30 million from Katy Perry.

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.

[Coito ergo sum]

No.....?

Probably best....

...it would likely be considered an indecent suggestion...

[maiforpeace]

BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.

[Coito ergo sum]

BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.

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]

BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.

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).

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]

BTW, they did get married in India, so there must of been some reason for them to make it legal in California.

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).

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?

It's not about physical presence. It's about permanent residence - where your home is.

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]

Unless she's as lousy at picking attorneys as she is at choosing spouses.

[Coito ergo sum]

Unless she's as lousy at picking attorneys as she is at choosing spouses.

Maybe she just like ugly, effeminate men with child-bearing hips?

[Svartalf]

who'll leave her and take her to the cleaners at earliest opportunity?
Heck, too bad I'm slim hipped and hairy.

[hadespussercats]

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.

There was reason, though. They got married, with is a legally binding economic arrangement. They didn't have to get married.