Now it’s bobby flay. he was smart, had a clearly signed pre-nup, and the girl now declaring it void.
“We regard the support provisions of the pre-marital agreement as unenforceable (not to mention reprehensible),” read the letter in part.
didn’t this happen to a few other celebs recently?
hell hath no fury like a woman scorned ?
It seems to me that if you cannot spend the rest of your life with someone, you shouldn’t nup.
Without a nup, there is no need for a pre.
flay smart dude, no kids and chicks on side. living the good life ginger
Maybe she hopes Bob will just settle some amount with her, to avoid an ongoing court case.
p.s. no wonder his nickname is the f ‘lay’ master
I don’t often disagree with The Magician, but I’m going to here.
Sure–nobody weds with the intent to divorce later. (Actually, I’m not so sure about that, but let’s go with it nonetheless.) But s—t happens a lot of the time. Over the course of a lifetime, people change, things happen, and it doesn’t always work out like you planned. Insuring against a divorce isn’t necessarily a sin.
Greenie: you know that I respect your opinion above all others. Well, above at least some others. Well, more or less.
I agree that stuff happens. But for me and my wife a ton of stuff has happened, and we’ve been married for 35 years. It’s not a matter of what happens. It’s a matter of whether your commitment to your marriage is stronger or weaker than your commitment to that stuff.
People don’t reflect on what it means to be married. They take the commitment too lightly. (As they probably take all their commitments.) If you give your marriage the serious consideration that it deserves, the stuff that happens doesn’t matter. (Note: both parties have to give it that consideration.)
People live a long time now. If after 20 years of marriage, both people are 45, decide they want to do different things and can separate amicably, it might not be reasonable to continue the marriage just because it’s marriage. Most people could probably do a bit better anyway, if they live their lives not based on decisions that they made when they were in their 20s.
If you’re a TV celebrity and marry the hottest tanned blond you can find who is 20 years younger than you (not referring to Mr. Flay), then maybe that might have been driven by superficial reasons. However, people can stay married for wrong reasons too.
This seems self-righteous. To use your own personal anecdotal experience to form a broad based rule under the assumption that you understand everyone else’s situation. You’d make a great evangelist, you should probably look into that.
I don’t really know any people very closely who’ve gone through divorce, but I did have a 6 year relationship implode unexpectedly that taught me relationship advice is great and all but things can still happen beyond your control. People also get divorced for various reasons later in life. I don’t think forcing people to be unhappy together helps anyone, and a prenupt is a great way to be prepared. People don’t need to be penalized financially just because their marriage did not work out.
Wake up on the wrong side of bed again? This is pretty snippy to a guy who doesn’t deserve it.
Don’t know if I agree with this. The marital assets are going to be divided somehow, and one person’s loss is the other’s gain. The pre-nup simply changes who gets “penalized”.
There were a lot of blanket statements in there that reminded me a lot of my evangelical upbringing. I guess what rubbed me the wrong way the most is hearing a guy on a CFA forum that talks about how to make waffles from scratch between playing with his horses talk about going through things. I have known friends who went through genuine physically abusive childhoods from parents that stayed married to their alchoholic spouse and I also have a very close friend who just had his eardrum burst by a psychopath wife that whips objects around the house and takes swings at him when she’s pissed. So you know, it’s not all good housekeeping out there.
It’s not really being penalized if two people just decide in advance to keep things equitable. If I married a chick worth $15M or who later became worth $15M through some form of career I would struggle to see how going halvsies would be anything but highway robbery.
a prenup as a mechanism is totally reasonable. people change. even if you keep it together, she might not. I can point to a personal story as well:
I had an amazing 3-year relationship, was certain it was leading to forever after, then she suddenly had a 6 month bat-sht crazy period where she started giving me these really unreasonable “tests” and “quizzes” (nothing had changed in our lives or circumstances. ) These included quotes such as: “you need to direct your entire paycheck and bonus to MY bank account, and then I will give YOU an allowance for spending money, for lunch etc.” and “I don’t want anything except a Tiffany’s Xcarat near-flawless… blah” and “you MUST give me a direct proportion of what you make in terms of gifts. So if you ever make it big, you would have to gift me like a new house every year etc”
now imagine if we had married and no pre-nup, goodbye 50% of assets.
Factor in that 1/4 of women wind up taking anti-depressants alone by the time they’re 40 and you’re running a real gauntlet out there.
^So THAT’s why you’re so cynical! (Directed at Itera).
Now we just need to know FT’s story.
Until your elder son has tried to commit suicide, I suggest that you refrain from judging me.
Unless it was because of your marriage somehow this is a stupid data point so I’ll just soldier on with the judgement, the same way you were about everyone else’s marriage ya’ big hipocrite!
It affected our marriage.
Any hypocrite is spelt with a “y”, not an “i”.
Twit.
Yaaaawn.
s2000, surely there is some point in a problematic marriage at which you will agree that divorce is optimal. I agree that getting married represents a strong commitment, and people should try to make the arrangement work. However, it might be going too far (and is a bit preachy, if I might respectfully add) to say that divorce in general is a result of people not taking commitments seriously.
Marriage is nothing but two people pooling their emotional/financial/physical potential together to get a one up on the rest of the world. Need all three to make it work and when one fails its best to find another partner.
Assuming we are all emotionally and physically equal, it makes sense to protect the partner that is bringing in more financially at the beginning of the relationship.