+100, if I was him I would already have people speaking to them to give it all a positive PR spinI think women's groups should support him to prove that they have conviction as to their decades long pursuit of equality.
+100, if I was him I would already have people speaking to them to give it all a positive PR spinI think women's groups should support him to prove that they have conviction as to their decades long pursuit of equality.
Strictly speaking a sexist opinion. Plus you know once the lawyers get involved that's never going to happen.No, it's called "doing the right thing"
General principle.
If he rakes her over the coals, a lot of people will not think well of him either.
He doesn't need the money. He is able to make his own.
I'm genuinely curious.It will be interesting to see if he tries to profit from the marriage. To me that would say a lot about who he is as a man. I can understand women taking men to the cleaners (especially if the men cheat), but something just doesn't seem right about a man profiting from divorce with a woman. Makes him seem less "manly" to me and more of a profiteer (which maybe he was to begin with, who knows).
I don't think Ryan Phillippe took any from Reese Witherspoon when they divorce.If he doesn't take half, he'll look like a fool and Katy would rightfully laugh her ass off at him.
You don't turn down $40 million USD just because "you have enough money already".
Are people really expecting this guy to not double his net worth if he can?
This boils down to a forum issue. They weren't married in California, they have spent much of their married life in the U.K. (of which he is a national) there is a good argument to be made that England rather than California is the proper forum and I'm sure her legal team will make it. This is to totally leave aside issues like the short duration of the marriage etc. . .Daily Mail said:The comedian is in line for the huge lump sum in a 50/50 split of the couple's earnings even after just 14 months of marriage.
Brand, 36, and Perry, 27, didn't sign a pre-nuptial agreement when they married in October so under Californian law, he could be entitled to half of her fortune.
No I do not. I suspect, however, that the answers may be found in this section of the California Family CodeI seriously doubt he is going to get $20 mill for a few months of marriage. Even California is not that stupid. Aardy, do you the specifics of Cali property claims law?
OK. So it's a lot like Ontario. Betcha there's also a sub section which gives the court discretion to heavily discount the 50:50 split in short term marriages. That's what we have up here.No I do not. I suspect, however, that the answers may be found in this section of the California Family Code
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/cacode/FAM/1/d7
Further to what Oagre mentions, it should be pointed out that the argument would be solely about property acquired by the husband or the wife during the course of the marriage (and I rather doubt Katy Perry made 40 million dollars in the past 14 months). Typically property acquired prior to the marriage or acquired by gift or inheritance during the marriage is not community property. Given the duration of this marriage most of the assets would not be community property.
So in a Community Property jurisdiction the money she made during the marriage and the money he made during the marriage would be put into a pot and divided equally. As posted above this is assuming that California even claims jurisdiction.
The real differences between Community Property (nine states almost entirely in the West and Southwest and having a Spanish heritage) and Equitable Distribution of Property states (the vast majority of the rest), are not nearly as great as they used to be, however, judges hands are tied more in Community Property states.OK. So it's a lot like Ontario.