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.

(NBC News)   Divorce judge orders man to pay his ex-wife $32 million in the next 28 days. Ex-wife calls the ruling 'disgraceful'   (worldnews.nbcnews.com) divider line 127
    More: Asinine, Topshop, debt settlement  
•       •       •

18099 clicks; posted to Main » on 23 Nov 2013 at 8:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



127 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-23 07:38:03 PM  
Sounds like the judge threw his hands up and said "yous people is cray-cray".
 
ZAZ [TotalFark]
2013-11-23 07:41:48 PM  
They should both forfeit all their assets and be put on welfare.
 
2013-11-23 08:05:47 PM  
Is this some sort of "Brewster's Millions" type lesson?
 
2013-11-23 08:05:52 PM  
Sounds like those two deserve each other.


ZAZ: They should both forfeit all their assets and be put on welfare

the dole.

Fixt.
 
2013-11-23 08:07:40 PM  
I've never seen pussy worth more than about $3 million. It looked a lot better than that.
 
2013-11-23 08:07:40 PM  
She should get what she earned only.  If he earned the money she gets nothing.
 
2013-11-23 08:10:39 PM  

ZAZ: They should both forfeit all their assets and be put on welfare.


Just like the rest of Great Britain?
 
2013-11-23 08:11:35 PM  
"I've never seen pussy worth more than about $3 million. It looked a lot better than that."

I've never seen pussy worth more that $48.75, but my standards are not that high. I have been married twice, if that makes a difference.
 
2013-11-23 08:13:12 PM  
I'm pretty sure she could disappear forever for only 1 or 2 million.
 
2013-11-23 08:14:47 PM  
Sounds like terrible people all around.
 
2013-11-23 08:16:17 PM  

bigsteve3OOO: She should get what she earned only.  If he earned the money she gets nothing.


Are you misunderstand law, or voicing opinion?
 
2013-11-23 08:20:53 PM  
Far from being "penniless and hopelessly bankrupt," as he had claimed, Scot Young, 51, was worth $65 million and his estranged wife Michelle Young, 49, should get half of it, judge Philip Moor ruled.

Ah... and what did she contribute to the marriage? Oh... a vagina. Well, 32 million it is!
 
2013-11-23 08:21:39 PM  
Well, the kind of people that become that successful tend to be sociopaths anyway.  She shouldn't be surprised if he is a "maniac."
 
2013-11-23 08:27:50 PM  
Looks like it's her time of the month. Period.
 
2013-11-23 08:29:51 PM  
It's just so sad to see two loving people drift apart. Maybe therapy? Come on, you crazy lovebirds, kiss and make up. (sob)
 
2013-11-23 08:33:11 PM  
The current divorce laws are what feminists should be attacking these days, they still consider the woman the useless portion of the marriage and in requirement of protection using the husband's money.  I'd say just making those prenuptial agreement terms a default part of marriages would fix a lot of stuff.  Child support aside, that's a completely different matter.
 
2013-11-23 08:34:27 PM  
"Michelle Young maintains that the meltdown was a fiction specifically designed to hide her ex-husband's wealth and deprive her and the couple's two daughters of their rightful share"

that is one expensive whore.
 
2013-11-23 08:37:42 PM  
Stupid biatch.
 
2013-11-23 08:37:48 PM  
Hmmmm.

I'm intrigued as to how the court determined the guy, who claimed to be bankrupt, had $65 million. I really hope the judge didn't just guess.
 
pla
2013-11-23 08:38:45 PM  
Dunno about the UK, but in the US, we have pretty straightforward ways of dealing with crap like this, short of fleeing to Ecuador...

This guy can have all his money hidden in as many disguised assets, shell corps, and even buried gold bars for all it matters. In order to spend it at a useful rate, however, at some point he needs to convert it into traceable electronic cash in his own name. You can only get so many under-the-radar perks as CEO of a "bankrupt" company; eventually, he'll want (for example) a credit card he can use to buy something as simple as a Big Mac. And then, they have him.

Of course, the way this reads, even aside from the judge's comments on the wife's paranoia, it sounds like the traditional "man must pay" post-marriage witch-hunt. Dude spent six months already for failing to completely disclose his assets? Shiat, I have nothing to hide, don't own any companies or multiple properties beyond my primary residence, and if you threatened me with the same deal, damn me if I could actually list all my assets. Hell, just a couple months ago, I found out about a bank account I "lost" about 15 years ago (nothing great, but had a few hundred in it).  Handcuffs, please.
 
2013-11-23 08:39:12 PM  

BumpInTheNight: The current divorce laws are what feminists should be attacking these days, they still consider the woman the useless portion of the marriage and in requirement of protection using the husband's money.  I'd say just making those prenuptial agreement terms a default part of marriages would fix a lot of stuff.  Child support aside, that's a completely different matter.


While I agree that statistics are starting to reverse, I believe women are still less likely to be breadwinners than men. Until then, the laws are founded in empirical reality.
 
2013-11-23 08:39:14 PM  
A very prestigious wealthy man and his wife were having dinner at a very fine restaurant when this absolutely stunning young woman comes over to their table, gives the husband a big open mouthed kiss, then says she'll see him later and walks away.

The wife glares at her husband and says, "Who was that?"

"Oh," replies the husband, "she's my mistress."

Well, that's the last straw," says the wife. "I've had enough. I want a divorce!"

"I can understand that," replies her husband, "but remember if we get a divorce, it will mean no more shopping trips to Paris , no more wintering in Barbados , no more summers in Tuscany , no more Jaguar in the garage and no more yacht club. But the decision is yours."

Just then, a colleague of the husband enters the restaurant with a gorgeous babe on his arm.

"Who's that woman with Matt ?" asks the wife.

"That's his mistress," says her husband.

"Ours is prettier," she replies.
 
2013-11-23 08:39:33 PM  

The_Original_Roxtar: "Michelle Young maintains that the meltdown was a fiction specifically designed to hide her ex-husband's wealth and deprive her and the couple's two daughters of their rightful share"

that is one expensive whore.


It's crazy because all these new laws and ideas that men had no idea about.  Since when does marrying someone and having children with them mean that your personal assets may suddenly come into play when that relationship ends???  THIS IS ALL NEW AND SCARY, HOW WAS HE TO KNOW?????
 
2013-11-23 08:39:56 PM  
monicastangledweb.files.wordpress.com

"Shoot zem. Shoot zem both."
 
2013-11-23 08:40:17 PM  
The one thing I've learned about British divorce court is it's designed to completely fark over men in every way possible.
 
2013-11-23 08:41:18 PM  

twiztedjustin: 've never seen pussy worth more than about $3 million.


There is no such thing.
 
2013-11-23 08:41:45 PM  
www.standard.co.uk
www.thegreenhead.com
 
2013-11-23 08:43:37 PM  
iheartscotch: ZAZ: They should both forfeit all their assets and be put on welfare.

Just like the rest of Great
Perfectly Adequate Britain?

/just teasing my cousins across the sea.
 
2013-11-23 08:45:23 PM  

zamboni: Far from being "penniless and hopelessly bankrupt," as he had claimed, Scot Young, 51, was worth $65 million and his estranged wife Michelle Young, 49, should get half of it, judge Philip Moor ruled.

Ah... and what did she contribute to the marriage? Oh... a vagina. Well, 32 million it is!


BumpInTheNight: The current divorce laws are what feminists should be attacking these days, they still consider the woman the useless portion of the marriage and in requirement of protection using the husband's money.  I'd say just making those prenuptial agreement terms a default part of marriages would fix a lot of stuff.  Child support aside, that's a completely different matter.


And what in the event of an LGBT marriage?

Prenups would help in a situation like that, but laws will still have to be written to protect those without them.
 
2013-11-23 08:46:13 PM  
 
2013-11-23 08:47:34 PM  

PsiChick: While I agree that statistics are starting to reverse, I believe women are still less likely to be breadwinners than men. Until then, the laws are founded in empirical reality.


It shouldn't even really be about the breading winning though, while together a couple enjoys the benefits of combined capabilities to make their lives mutually better.  When two people divorce that mutual capability should dissolve entirely or at least if resources are to be shared afterwards it'd be only at the discretion of whoever is providing them (ie breadwinner etc).  Back in the day we had some rather intangible mutual benefits such as one parent raising the children while the other worked so that's muddy waters for sure and I can see reasons for trying to balance that.  However that's really not the case anymore for most people and the remaining ones that choose to live as house pets outta face things as a genuine independent person should if that the gravy train runs out.

The kids though, they should be entitled to stay at the standard of living they were afforded by both parents, heavy child support from this guy is A-okay with me if she's keeping the daughters.  Inevitably we know she'll use a portion of that support for herself but at least the reasoning for getting it is clear and sweetly enough it should run out when the kids stop being kids.
 
2013-11-23 08:49:15 PM  

Southern100: And what in the event of an LGBT marriage?

Prenups would help in a situation like that, but laws will still have to be written to protect those without them.


Same thing; when they split they're on their own and that's that unless they agree to some sort of extended help but its purely at the discretion of the one who's resources are being offered.  Except again the child support thing, that I'm cool with.
 
2013-11-23 08:51:50 PM  
It could be me, but it seems a large amount of wealth tends to turn anything it touches into an ugly, cheap, slimy, wallowing in pigsh*t with your underpants down, shallow, nasty parody of whatever it was supposed to be.
 
2013-11-23 08:52:08 PM  

iheartscotch: ZAZ: They should both forfeit all their assets and be put on welfare.

Just like the rest of Great Britain?


And what the USA is trying to do.

/FACT
 
2013-11-23 08:52:52 PM  

BumpInTheNight: PsiChick: While I agree that statistics are starting to reverse, I believe women are still less likely to be breadwinners than men. Until then, the laws are founded in empirical reality.

It shouldn't even really be about the breading winning though, while together a couple enjoys the benefits of combined capabilities to make their lives mutually better.  When two people divorce that mutual capability should dissolve entirely or at least if resources are to be shared afterwards it'd be only at the discretion of whoever is providing them (ie breadwinner etc).  Back in the day we had some rather intangible mutual benefits such as one parent raising the children while the other worked so that's muddy waters for sure and I can see reasons for trying to balance that.  However that's really not the case anymore for most people and the remaining ones that choose to live as house pets outta face things as a genuine independent person should if that the gravy train runs out.

The kids though, they should be entitled to stay at the standard of living they were afforded by both parents, heavy child support from this guy is A-okay with me if she's keeping the daughters.  Inevitably we know she'll use a portion of that support for herself but at least the reasoning for getting it is clear and sweetly enough it should run out when the kids stop being kids.


But if someone's been out of work for years, getting back into the marketplace  won't happen overnight. They'll need support until they can stand on their own. Otherwise you're basically saying 'divorce? Welp, we'll screw you over so you're homeless if you do!'. Not the best plan ever.
 
2013-11-23 08:53:12 PM  

That guy on the bike: [www.standard.co.uk image 620x413]
[www.thegreenhead.com image 300x300]


She has an Ann Coulter neck. Not good.
 
2013-11-23 08:53:32 PM  
An African Safari with a lot of hungry Lions would have been a lot cheaper.
 
2013-11-23 08:53:56 PM  
Sweet babby jesus, I have never seen a more unlikable human bean in my life.
 
2013-11-23 08:55:43 PM  

PsiChick: But if someone's been out of work for years, getting back into the marketplace won't happen overnight. They'll need support until they can stand on their own. Otherwise you're basically saying 'divorce? Welp, we'll screw you over so you're homeless if you do!'. Not the best plan ever.


Surely there are programs and services available to those who end up like that through situations other then divorce, why are they not the solution?  A true equal would be able to recover from a severance of a marriage, I have no sympathy for house pets though.
 
2013-11-23 08:56:20 PM  

PsiChick: They'll need support until they can stand on their own. Otherwise you're basically saying 'divorce? Welp, we'll screw you over so you're homeless if you do!'. Not the best plan ever.


It would seem, however, that saying "I am appalled that m'lud could think I could stay out of the gutter with anything less than the whole 32 mil!", is.
 
2013-11-23 09:00:30 PM  

That guy on the bike:


Bill Murray approves.
 
2013-11-23 09:01:43 PM  

BumpInTheNight: PsiChick: But if someone's been out of work for years, getting back into the marketplace won't happen overnight. They'll need support until they can stand on their own. Otherwise you're basically saying 'divorce? Welp, we'll screw you over so you're homeless if you do!'. Not the best plan ever.

Surely there are programs and services available to those who end up like that through situations other then divorce, why are they not the solution?  A true equal would be able to recover from a severance of a marriage, I have no sympathy for house pets though.


why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill to cover a dependent spouse after divorce and not the person whom they were previously married to?

As for your final paragraph, it is completely devoid of any basing in reality.
 
2013-11-23 09:02:37 PM  

PsiChick: BumpInTheNight: The current divorce laws are what feminists should be attacking these days, they still consider the woman the useless portion of the marriage and in requirement of protection using the husband's money.  I'd say just making those prenuptial agreement terms a default part of marriages would fix a lot of stuff.  Child support aside, that's a completely different matter.

While I agree that statistics are starting to reverse, I believe women are still less likely to be breadwinners than men. Until then, the laws are founded in empirical reality.


Pay rates are the same when you take into account that women tend to take extended time not working when compared to men, usually to raise children.  Women are now graduating from college at a much higher rate than men.  Women are equally capable.

Also, $32 million isn't founded in empirical reality.  That's "fark the dude without lube", especially when there is no evidence he has any money.  Even if he has the money, that's not a simple matter of making sure they have enough to stand on their own.
 
2013-11-23 09:04:37 PM  
v018o.popscreen.com

"Oh, but let's all shed a tear for poor Michelle Young."
 
2013-11-23 09:05:52 PM  

BumpInTheNight: PsiChick: But if someone's been out of work for years, getting back into the marketplace won't happen overnight. They'll need support until they can stand on their own. Otherwise you're basically saying 'divorce? Welp, we'll screw you over so you're homeless if you do!'. Not the best plan ever.

Surely there are programs and services available to those who end up like that through situations other then divorce, why are they not the solution?  A true equal would be able to recover from a severance of a marriage, I have no sympathy for house pets though.


I dunno, having society pick up the slack doesn't seem like an optimal solution either.  Sure, it's going to happen in some cases regardless, but after 17 years you expect a woman to leave a relationship with no assets or support from the husband, even though the whole situation might be beyond her control?

Surely Farkers can come up with a more equitable solution.
 
2013-11-23 09:06:31 PM  

OgreMagi: PsiChick: BumpInTheNight: The current divorce laws are what feminists should be attacking these days, they still consider the woman the useless portion of the marriage and in requirement of protection using the husband's money.  I'd say just making those prenuptial agreement terms a default part of marriages would fix a lot of stuff.  Child support aside, that's a completely different matter.

While I agree that statistics are starting to reverse, I believe women are still less likely to be breadwinners than men. Until then, the laws are founded in empirical reality.

Pay rates are the same when you take into account that women tend to take extended time not working when compared to men, usually to raise children.  Women are now graduating from college at a much higher rate than men.  Women are equally capable.

Also, $32 million isn't founded in empirical reality.  That's "fark the dude without lube", especially when there is no evidence he has any money.  Even if he has the money, that's not a simple matter of making sure they have enough to stand on their own.


No, for this case I'm pretty sure the judge just said 'you get half, you get half, gtfo of my courtroom before I lose more brain cells'. But even if pay rates are the same, I'm talking about time women  take off. My mom stayed home to raise us, and it was hard for her to find a job when trouble hit. She's not particularly stupid, either.

BumpInTheNight: PsiChick: But if someone's been out of work for years, getting back into the marketplace won't happen overnight. They'll need support until they can stand on their own. Otherwise you're basically saying 'divorce? Welp, we'll screw you over so you're homeless if you do!'. Not the best plan ever.

Surely there are programs and services available to those who end up like that through situations other then divorce, why are they not the solution?  A true equal would be able to recover from a severance of a marriage, I have no sympathy for house pets though.


...I'm kind of getting the feeling you don't get out and interact with people much, do you...

bunner: PsiChick: They'll need support until they can stand on their own. Otherwise you're basically saying 'divorce? Welp, we'll screw you over so you're homeless if you do!'. Not the best plan ever.

It would seem, however, that saying "I am appalled that m'lud could think I could stay out of the gutter with anything less than the whole 32 mil!", is.


No, like I said--that was the judge saying 'gtfo'.
 
2013-11-23 09:12:31 PM  
It's all money.

Political affiliations, marriage, feminism, racial equality.

It's all just people bending together under any implied common demographic, using ANYthing they can as a bolthole to get.  more.  money.

And the cheerleaders gathering to their respective positions are all just hoping that THEIR "team" wins and sets a precedent for further decisions to made in favor of their "team" getting  - - - The Money™  Cause we will, it seems say anything, do anything and wipe our collective, unwashed asses with the last shred of our dignity, morals or best intentions to get more than the other guy or gal does.  Personally, I hope both of these yoyos hit a mountain as their plane comes into a landing at whatever tax haven the loot is stashed in as they fly in to divvy it up.
 
2013-11-23 09:19:16 PM  

Southern100: I dunno, having society pick up the slack doesn't seem like an optimal solution either. Sure, it's going to happen in some cases regardless, but after 17 years you expect a woman to leave a relationship with no assets or support from the husband, even though the whole situation might be beyond her control?


She had 17 years to make something of herself other then arm candy for captain rich dude, if the best she could come up with after parting of ways is going on welfare until she do better then so be it.  No different then any other situation where you lose your financial health through events even beyond your control and have to resort to state help.

sprgrss: why should the taxpayers have to foot the bill to cover a dependent spouse after divorce and not the person whom they were previously married to?


As above, because that person lost their financial stability and welfare programs are the state provided service to aid people in those situations.  No different then say quitting, getting fired or laid off, you'd ask that the company that was previously paying your way continue to do so?

PsiChick: ...I'm kind of getting the feeling you don't get out and interact with people much, do you...


Nice.
 
2013-11-23 09:21:43 PM  
$500 would have bought you a pre-nupt. And yes, Ask Me Anything.
 
2013-11-23 09:23:45 PM  
Two things would happen if my ex was trying to get half of MY $65 million.

1. We would go on a boating trip and there would be an accident
2. Renounce my citizenship and move to a country without extradition
 
Displayed 50 of 127 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report