PDA

View Full Version : Divorce Battle: Connecticut Countess Can't Live on $43M


Bijoux0021
Mar 24th, 2009, 06:51 AM
WOW! To think that someone has gotten so rich that she can't live on $43M? :scared: It's just mind-blowing!
===========================================

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/us_world/War-of-the-Roses-Connecticut-Style.html

Divorce Battle: Connecticut Countess Can't Live on $43M

Updated 2:27 PM PDT, Wed, Mar 18, 2009

HARTFORD, Conn -- All is fair in love and war, but the dissolution of a high-profile marriage in Connecticut is becoming a royal pain.

Former United Technologies Corp. president and current board Chairman George David, 67, and his estranged wife, Swedish countess Marie Douglas-David, headed to Hartford Family Court on Wednesday morning, bringing their increasingly vicious divorce out in the open.

She said she just can't live on $43 million.

(Click here to read her expenses in court documents.)

The two, who married in 2002, were not able to reach an out-of-court settlement in recent days.

Douglas-David is keeping in good company with her legal team. She hired high-profile New York City divorce lawyer William Beslow, whose celebrity clients have included Christie Brinkley, Tatum O'Neal and Marla Maples.

Not to be outdone, David has Adria Hillman on his witness list for the trial. Hillman represented business billionaire Ron Perlman in his divorces against former socialite Patricia Duff and actress Ellen Barkin. He also represented actress Beverly D'Angelo when she and Al Pacino fought over custody of their twins.

"I'm just very sad that we are where we are," said Douglas-David. "I hope we resolve this soon so everybody can move on with their lives."

It's turning out to be a real-life "War of the Roses," let's just hope they don't fight over extravagant homes and fall from chandeliers.

At the center of every multi-million dollar marriage is the prenup, but a post-nup?

Wednesday's proceedings are expected to center on the validity of a 2005 post-nuptial agreement that provided Douglas-David with about $43 million, but it's an agreement she contends is unenforceable, according to The Hartford Courant.

David, who has an estimated net worth of $329 million, is asking the court to uphold the agreement.

Douglas-David is accusing David of cruelty, saying he coerced her into signing the agreement.

Douglas-David is seeking additional money, real estate and jewelry and says the money isn't enough to maintain her $53,000-per-week living expenses. Their divorce trial started Wednesday because they were unable to reach an out-of-court settlement.

David stepped down as chief executive of United Technologies last year, but remains chairman of the board. He earned nearly $27 million in 2007 in salary and bonuses.

Direwolf
Mar 24th, 2009, 08:05 AM
Let her eat money

Barrie_Dude
Mar 24th, 2009, 03:56 PM
Let her eat moneyApperantly she thinks he shits money! :eek:

Direwolf
Mar 24th, 2009, 06:56 PM
Apperantly she thinks he shits money! :eek:

Then let her eat his shit

:eek::eek::help:

BigB08822
Mar 24th, 2009, 07:00 PM
She can't live off of $53,000 a WEEK!? That is more than the average person makes in a year. I have no pity for her at all, especially having only been married to the man for 7 years! Did he not make most of his money before meeting and/or marrying her, anyway? She is lucky I am not the judge because she I would say the post-nup wasn't enforceable and then tell her that she is getting way less than 43 million! HA!

Expat
Mar 24th, 2009, 07:08 PM
Hey its her life.
43 million may be nothing according to her lifestyle.
Hearing the people here rant on socialism and the rich I always remember this quote from David Friedman.
How much do people feel is too much money that is more than enough to live and deserves to be taxed at the higher rate ? Answer : About twice of what he/his family earns.
Though I am not sure if a post-nuptial agreement is valid or not.
If the law states that she is entitled up to half of his income she is entitled to it regardless of her wealth or social status.

spartanfan
Mar 24th, 2009, 07:52 PM
If I were the judge she wouldn't get anything. The arrogance and ignorance of someone to say OUT LOUD that they can't live on $53,000.00 a week. What is wrong with the world today?

Bijoux0021
Mar 24th, 2009, 08:20 PM
If she can't live off $53,000.00 a week, someone like her would not know how to survive any real hardships whatsoever. She would simply die in a few days.

hankqq
Mar 24th, 2009, 09:04 PM
how "noble" of her :p :rolleyes:

gentenaire
Mar 24th, 2009, 09:58 PM
Hey its her life.
43 million may be nothing according to her lifestyle.
Hearing the people here rant on socialism and the rich I always remember this quote from David Friedman.
How much do people feel is too much money that is more than enough to live and deserves to be taxed at the higher rate ? Answer : About twice of what he/his family earns.
Though I am not sure if a post-nuptial agreement is valid or not.
If the law states that she is entitled up to half of his income she is entitled to it regardless of her wealth or social status.

It's not about socialism, quite the contrary! No one is saying the man is making too much money. He's working for it! She isn't. That's the point. Why should she deserve to get so much money?

(4500 dollars on clothing a week!!)

Expat
Mar 24th, 2009, 10:08 PM
It's not about socialism, quite the contrary! No one is saying the man is making too much money. He's working for it! She isn't. That's the point. Why should she deserve to get so much money?

(4500 dollars on clothing a week!!)

If the law states she is entitled to it she is entitled to it. It doesn't matter if she wants 43 million or 43000. Whether its too much money or too little shouldn't even enter the equation. And her lifestyle though unusual to us is quite normal for someone from that echelon of society. Yes her only job may have been to service her husband a few times but if the earnings of that are equal to a few million dollars she is entitled to it.

Quite honestly if it was someone getting a settlement of just 43 thousand instead of 43 million most of you would be saying that she deserves more if the ratio was the same and the husband cheated her by forcing her to sign a pre nuptial agreement.

Wigglytuff
Mar 25th, 2009, 01:13 AM
i think she should get $53,000 a year and let her eat THAT cake!

spartanfan
Mar 25th, 2009, 02:00 PM
i think she should get $53,000 a year and let her eat THAT cake!
:lol: I think the judge should make her ass get a job and see what it takes to earn 53,000$ a year. Does anyone know what the whackjob was doing before she got married?