MadelynIris
Refugee
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/03/17/mccartney.mills/index.html
Seem fair? After all, she helped him build this fortune.
Seem fair? After all, she helped him build this fortune.
McCartney, not McCarty
melon said:Everyone says that, but, legally, it doesn't matter. There's no prenuptial agreement, and, thus, there's usually an expectation that an ex-spouse is entitled to a standard of living equivalent to what he/she was living before, barring such an agreement.
melon said:Everyone says that, but, legally, it doesn't matter. There's no prenuptial agreement, and, thus, there's usually an expectation that an ex-spouse is entitled to a standard of living equivalent to what he/she was living before, barring such an agreement.
Considering that he's worth close to a billion dollars, what's a measly fifty million to him anyway? I have better things to do with my life than to feel sorry for a billionaire.
MadelynIris said:http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/03/17/mccartney.mills/index.html
Seem fair? After all, she helped him build this fortune.
ewings said:
She was married to him for 4 years; I think he had his fortune built long before she came into the picture.
the standard equivalent to before they got married or divorced?melon said:Everyone says that, but, legally, it doesn't matter. There's no prenuptial agreement, and, thus, there's usually an expectation that an ex-spouse is entitled to a standard of living equivalent to what he/she was living before, barring such an agreement.
Salome said:
because the judge did state (though not in these exact words) that Mills couldn't expect she was entitled living according to the standard McCartney was able to provide her with
Salome said:the standard equivalent to before they got married or divorced?
because the judge did state (though not in these exact words) that Mills couldn't expect she was entitled living according to the standard McCartney was able to provide her with