If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chicago Sun-Times)   Kinda news: Judge awards ex-wife $176 million in divorce. Not news: husband requests that the court reconsider. Fark: Judge says ok...and ups award to $184 million   (suntimes.com) divider line 93
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

13644 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jun 2007 at 5:48 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



93 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2007-06-04 05:39:03 PM
The Polskys emigrated from Russia with nothing more than 30 years ago.

Umm, what?!?
 
2007-06-04 05:43:22 PM
tukatz: The Polskys emigrated from Russia with nothing more than 30 years ago.

Umm, what?!?


30 years ago, they immigrated with nothing
 
amo [TotalFark]
2007-06-04 05:48:41 PM
FTFA: "She was not a driving force of the business," attorney Joseph Tighe said. "We don't think the judge's decision gives proper considerations to the contributions of a spouse in the development of the estate."

She stayed home and raised their children. There would have been much less "driving force" for him to put into the business had she worked outside the home. How is that not worth half?
 
2007-06-04 05:52:10 PM
as a lawyer it makes me wonder: does Illinois law allow attys to get a contingent fee of a property settlement in divorce, AND did her atty have such an arrangement?

if so, that is one happy-ass attorney right about now.
 
2007-06-04 05:54:55 PM
BTW, this is one of the exhibits at the Maya Polsky Gallery:

www.mayapolskygallery.com

/not really relevant
//but still
///I love modern art btw
////I call this one "Too Many Slashies; Irrelevant Comment"
 
2007-06-04 05:55:41 PM
The judge awarded his ex-wife $176 million?
 
2007-06-04 05:55:55 PM
So this guy made roughly half a billion dollars in the energy industry?!?

/I thought I was paying too much for my electrical bill..DAYAM!!
 
2007-06-04 05:56:14 PM
They both went into it with nothing, they should both leave with half of whatever they've made since then.

If they made nothing in 30 years, well then, sucks to be either one of them.

If they made...$318 million dollars since then, well then, I won't cry for either one of them.

Happy hunting.
 
2007-06-04 05:57:03 PM
I'm usually against gold diggers but they were together for 30 years. She was there while he accumulated wealth. She gets half. "I want half Eddie...HALF!"
 
2007-06-04 05:57:04 PM
The Polskys emigrated from Russia with nothing no possessions more than 30 years ago.
 
2007-06-04 05:57:37 PM
She married him when they were poor and immigrated here. She stuck with him the entire time and raised the kids. 50/50 seems pretty fair to me.
 
2007-06-04 05:57:39 PM
I suck at HTML, can't make a strike-out through 'nothing'

/fail internet
 
2007-06-04 05:57:46 PM
ha ha.

take that, tovaritch
 
2007-06-04 05:57:48 PM
sr71: They both went into it with nothing, they should both leave with half of whatever they've made since then.

If they made nothing in 30 years, well then, sucks to be either one of them.

If they made...$318 million dollars since then, well then, I won't cry for either one of them.


srsly. It's not like she Anna Nicole'd her way into the marriage. She was his wife of over 30 years and raised their kids.
 
2007-06-04 05:59:15 PM
What's that? $60 million for the Lawyer?
 
2007-06-04 05:59:49 PM
I'm not sure why he thinks she doesn't deserve half?
 
2007-06-04 06:01:05 PM
Not really newsworthy, she did her share of the work in the marriage and left with half the cash that came in in that period.

If that fool didn't try to get it changed, he wouldn't be out another 8 mil.
 
2007-06-04 06:01:21 PM
Yeah.. that 40 hour a week raising kids job is pretty rough.. oh, yeah, thats right, that probably lasted until the first mil.. then she didn't do shiat while he worked 80 hours a week, like people that rich didn't have nannies.. the freaking nanny should get 25% by the logic they use to divvy up divorces.
 
2007-06-04 06:02:37 PM
maybe more than 40 hours a week, but only until they're like 4 before someone brings that up.
 
2007-06-04 06:06:14 PM
I agree with Freeballin. Once they secured that first million she didn't do JACK shiat in terms of household.

She opened a freaking art gallery for christs sake. That's when you know you're way too rich and way too bored. You build a gallery to stock with questionable garbage and open it for FREE to let others view it too. C'mon, this is retarded.
 
2007-06-04 06:06:56 PM
Yeah.. that 40 hour a week raising kids job is pretty rough.. oh, yeah, thats right, that probably lasted until the first mil.. then she didn't do shiat while he worked 80 hours a week, like people that rich didn't have nannies.. the freaking nanny should get 25% by the logic they use to divvy up divorces.

whether or not i can add anything of substance to this thread, it's pretty plain to see the point you have.. I doubt very, very much that there is anything 50/50 here, pragmatically speaking.

/unless she rubbed his feets every night
 
2007-06-04 06:07:13 PM
I'm pretty sure that you could get a nanny, a housekeeper, and a hooker for less than $184m.
 
2007-06-04 06:08:13 PM
50/50 is fair, considering he had nothing when they met. It's especially fair when you're talking about tens of millions - Chris Rock said it best.
 
2007-06-04 06:12:10 PM
Years ago when the father-in-law was running back and forth to Japan on company business, my mother-in-law quipped, "If he ever cavorts with one of those geisha girls, I'll divorce him and take every penny he owns."

That's true and endearing love ain't it. Someone works hard all their life to be successful, provide a comfortable living for their family and they have to behave on the threat of a divorce stripping everything away from them.

/she was serious.
 
2007-06-04 06:15:39 PM
I'm with Freeballin, the suggestion that she had as much to do with the success of that business as he did is a joke.

He was successful, she was nearby.
 
2007-06-04 06:20:35 PM
That's about 186,998,000 more than it would cost to polonium-ate her sorry ass.
 
2007-06-04 06:21:51 PM
It was built during the marriage, it's marital. I don't care who put what into it. The marriage is a partnership, and both parties have an ownership interest in that partnership. Whatever grows from it is shared by them in equal proportion.
 
2007-06-04 06:22:13 PM
They ultimately had homes in Chicago, Glencoe, Wisconsin and Colorado

Is Glencoe (median household income according to Wikipedia: $36,750) the new Aspen or something?
 
2007-06-04 06:22:24 PM
While i disagree with the 50/50 split, her share should still be substantial. Women often give up opportunities in order to let their husbands' careers flourish. Granted, it doesn't take as much work to raise kids as it does to run a business (not to mention the fact that raising kids is probably more fun), but if you DO raise kids, you kill any chance for a career. Even if raising kids is 20 hours a week, those are 20 hours at random times during the day. Good luck doing that and working 80. It would be a little unfair to judge the split purely based on how much she contributed to the business, there's also a consideration on how much she gave up (maybe not towards the end, but definitely in the beginning).
 
2007-06-04 06:23:12 PM
 
2007-06-04 06:26:51 PM
TDUsGamer

This is one of the Boobies-modern art pieces I've seen that took skill to put together. I mean, all the wheels are going in the same direction. Magnifique!
 
2007-06-04 06:29:15 PM
camelclub: That's true and endearing love ain't it. Someone works hard all their life to be successful, provide a comfortable living for their family and they have to behave on the threat of a divorce stripping everything away from them.

Sorry but providing for the family doesn't include boning hot Japanese chicks.

/If it does, please forward the memo to my wife.
 
2007-06-04 06:29:43 PM
Should have taken the C on a cruise and pitched her off the back at midnight been done many times and no one is in jail. some fake tears and your 184 mil in the black.
 
2007-06-04 06:30:15 PM
www.geocities.com

What's wrong with me?

I think you're crazy!

I want a second opinion.

You're also lazy!
 
2007-06-04 06:31:36 PM
FTA: The couple was married for 31 years.

For the grammar Nazi's:

Is "The couple were married for 31 years." Just the same or more correct?

/Just wondering
 
2007-06-04 06:33:37 PM
Married means equal partners, in the good as well as the bad. Had he run their finances into the ground with say gambling debts, she'd have half of that obligation. People only biatch about it being unfair if its a lot of money, but f 'em. That's what marriage is.
 
2007-06-04 06:33:58 PM
Theys was hitched for 31 yaars
 
2007-06-04 06:36:51 PM
i think all you farkers who say that she doesn't deserve her half of the estate mean "i waant it wahhhh why didn't i marry him??"
 
2007-06-04 06:40:13 PM
Panavision
cou·ple (kŭp'əl)
n.

1. Two items of the same kind; a pair.
2. Something that joins or connects two things together; a link.
3. (used with a sing. or pl. verb)
3.1. Two people united, as by betrothal or marriage.
3.2. Two people together.


Looks like both are equally correct.

/Fark killed my formatting
 
2007-06-04 06:41:23 PM
My vote goes into the "too much" pile.

As already mentioned, after the first few million, her role at home became relegated to boss around the hired help.


/Cap divorce settlements at $10 million max for irreconcilable differences and other minor issues; no cap for adultery or physical abuse
 
2007-06-04 06:42:04 PM
It would be considerably cheaper to have her killed. And given current overpopulation, more environmentally friendly as well.
 
2007-06-04 06:42:20 PM
and they have to behave on the threat of a divorce stripping everything away from them.


Wow, if it ain't been said before, camel, you are a moron.

"Works hard and provides" /= right to cheat on your spouse.

Yep. "have to behave" is something decent folks don't need a "threat of divorce" to do. Sounds like your FIL & MIL got a prize son-in-law. Do you feel that way about their daughter, btw? If you "work hard and provide" you are allowed to step out on her?
 
2007-06-04 06:42:34 PM
Unless she can prove she could have made that amount in the time she was with him and raising children, and had absolutely no chance to make money on her own, she should not see a penny of it.

He's been paying for her life for the last 30 years already, why should she get the rest of his money just because she leaves?
 
2007-06-04 06:44:18 PM
boobies-modern

collateral filter damage strewn everywhere, that was funny!

1 st-powst-modern, for the curious..
 
2007-06-04 06:48:13 PM
EatHam: I'm pretty sure that you could get a nanny, a housekeeper, and a hooker for less than $184m.

QFT

nazgulcane: Married means equal partners, in the good as well as the bad. Had he run their finances into the ground with say gambling debts, she'd have half of that obligation.

So marriage =

you do really bad + they do really bad, so you share the pain = lose

you do really well, but only really own half of your assets = lose

you do really bad, but you can leech off your partner = win

you do really well, but your partner leeches off you = lose
 
2007-06-04 06:54:15 PM
MY great-gereat-great-great-great-great-Grand daddy Emigrated here from AUstria and only had some acorns in his pocket.
The Polskys emigrated from Russia with nothing more than 30 years ago.
Gaddam existentialinskis.
 
2007-06-04 06:54:19 PM
lordargent

No, no...it goes like this:

You take the good, you take the bad, you take the rest and there you have the Facts of Life.
 
2007-06-04 06:56:02 PM
While it would suck big time to lose $184 million, you still have $184 million. What can you buy with $368 million that you can't with $184 million?
 
2007-06-04 07:00:44 PM
Speaking as the man that I am, I have to say that I probably would have been a little uncomfortable if I carried my son for 36 or so weeks, in my belly...much less 4 times.

Pretty much standard settlement for divorce sans prenuptial.

/I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'.
//I don't necessarily agree with the settlement
 
2007-06-04 07:05:08 PM
IMHO there is no viable, 'financially accurate' way to measure divorce proceeds.

I'm sure there have been situations where the female works none, but provided love and support which in-turn grossed millions of dollars.... and without it, who knows, the guy might of done nothing with his life...

Either way, its nice to have a static 50/50 rule (exception being provable infidelity and abuse). A rule that is not only designed to keep marriages together, but also to remind people not to get married ...and if you do, be smart enough to get a prenup....

I'd argue, if you make that first million... are doing the majority of revenue generating...and are going to biatch about 50/50 in the future...go ahead and cut your losses then...
 
Displayed 50 of 93 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report