Vanessa Bryant files for divorce - Page 2
Old 12-17-2011, 12:40 AM   #21 (permalink)
is full of beans

Senior Member
 
Beans's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria BC
Posts: 4,365
Representing:
Default

The look of a guy who's getting a divorce soon.


Last edited by Beans; 12-17-2011 at 10:07 AM.
Beans is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:49 AM   #22 (permalink)
is all bout dat life

Can't knock the Hustle
 
Nites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 15,089
Representing:
Default

^^lol that hairline is getting up there ain't it?
Nites is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 02:23 AM   #23 (permalink)
chucking wood like a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 728
Representing:
Default

I've never rooted for Kobe but losing half of that wealth over divorce is insane. I'll root for him here.
ValanciunasFanboy is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 09:53 AM   #24 (permalink)
is not changing this sig until we win a playoff series

everyones a critic
 
th3answ3r's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 2,471
Representing:
Default

th3answ3r is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 10:01 AM   #25 (permalink)
I believe in Masai

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,047
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10gizzle View Post
There's something about prenups and women taking 50% of a mans worth (or vice versa if applicable) that doesn't sit right with me in the least bit...

Anyone care to shed any light/insight/opinion behind the entire process?
this thread has lots of discussion on this topic.

Alimony

here is my take:

Alimony

edit - i will also add that it is not 'the man's' worth, it is the family's worth.

Last edited by 'trane; 12-17-2011 at 01:00 PM.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 10:15 AM   #26 (permalink)
the next dictator of MLSE

fresh and clean
 
Windex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: uʍop ɹǝpun
Posts: 22,524
Representing:
Default

and hotels in Colorado rejoice
Windex is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:24 PM   #27 (permalink)
Is playing the dude disguised as another dude

Moderator

 
Shadowfax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Earth
Posts: 10,950
Representing:
Default

i'm wondering if he'll blame management for this
Shadowfax is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:39 PM   #28 (permalink)
up there

][__ . //-\\ .
 
ClutchCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Posts: 3,055
Representing:
Default

Hopefully this doesn't affect his game on the basketball court.
ClutchCity is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:41 PM   #29 (permalink)
the fighter of the Nightman

Ch-Ch-Ch-Ch-Cherry Bomb
 
Barracuda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 7,962
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ClutchCity View Post
Hopefully this doesn't affect his game on the basketball court.
Hopefully it does
Barracuda is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 12:58 PM   #30 (permalink)
up there

][__ . //-\\ .
 
ClutchCity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Brampton, Ontario
Posts: 3,055
Representing:
Default

I bet it won't
ClutchCity is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 02:10 PM   #31 (permalink)
is the baby faced assassin

Senior Member
 
jeffb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: YO MAMMA
Posts: 81,249
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ValanciunasFanboy View Post
I've never rooted for Kobe but losing half of that wealth over divorce is insane. I'll root for him here.
He got married without a prenup. His own fault!
jeffb is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 02:41 PM   #32 (permalink)
the next dictator of MLSE

fresh and clean
 
Windex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: uʍop ɹǝpun
Posts: 22,524
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffb View Post
He got married without a prenup. His own fault!
He got married. mistake
Windex is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 03:04 PM   #33 (permalink)
chucking wood like a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 728
Representing:
Default

it's still stupid. maybe i'm just not used to that system. it wouldn't be nearly as expensive here, prenup or no prenup. It's all about the kids. And the spouse - if she/he gave up a promising big time career - that's accounted for. But noone deserves hundreds of millions for getting married.
ValanciunasFanboy is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 03:10 PM   #34 (permalink)
I believe in Masai

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,047
Representing:
Default

you don't get hundreds of millions because you got married, like it is some kind of payment. the money earned while married, and the combination of assets that are combined when the partnership is merged, are the property of both spouses, based on the contract that the marriage represents. spousal support is not the man's money, nor is it a payment. it is her share of the family's worth.

the child support payments, similarly, represent the children's portion of that worth and the breadwinner's commitment to continue to support them at the standard of living to which the family is accustomed.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 03:36 PM   #35 (permalink)
chucking wood like a woodchuck would if a woodchuck could chuck wood

Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 728
Representing:
Default

i understand the doctrine. I disagree with it. the outcome is not sensible.
we have the same core principles here. the implementation is very different in practice.
ValanciunasFanboy is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 03:41 PM   #36 (permalink)
I believe in Masai

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,047
Representing:
Default

what about the outcome is not sensible, and what is a better option?
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 04:24 PM   #37 (permalink)
is all bout dat life

Can't knock the Hustle
 
Nites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 15,089
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
you don't get hundreds of millions because you got married, like it is some kind of payment. the money earned while married, and the combination of assets that are combined when the partnership is merged, are the property of both spouses, based on the contract that the marriage represents. spousal support is not the man's money, nor is it a payment. it is her share of the family's worth.

the child support payments, similarly, represent the children's portion of that worth and the breadwinner's commitment to continue to support them at the standard of living to which the family is accustomed.
Why is child support needed when she will get half of the assets anyway? The assets alone will probably be enough to last generations. With the child support I'm assuming that she will inherit a certain percentage of every pay check that Kobe makes. I'm not a Kobe fan by any means but the whole no-prenup process just seems unfair.
Nites is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 04:29 PM   #38 (permalink)
is all bout dat life

Can't knock the Hustle
 
Nites's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 15,089
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 'trane View Post
what about the outcome is not sensible, and what is a better option?
In a marriage where only one spouse is generating income the no-prenup condition should by default divide all assets, properties, and money 75% to 25% with the 75% being towards the spouse who generated all the income.

If both spouses are generating income they could use some sort of math formula to generate the percentages.
Nites is offline   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 06:42 PM   #39 (permalink)
I believe in Masai

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,047
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 007nites View Post
In a marriage where only one spouse is generating income the no-prenup condition should by default divide all assets, properties, and money 75% to 25% with the 75% being towards the spouse who generated all the income.

If both spouses are generating income they could use some sort of math formula to generate the percentages.
why? that seems completely absurd because it posits that the two spouses are independent people when in fact they are a union. the spouse that is not earning is giving up their opportunity to make a career by being the primary child supporter, or because the two have agreed that this is part of their partnership. the primary breadwinner is not making the money for him/herself, they are making it on behalf of the family. that's what the compact is all about, especially in the eyes of the law.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Old 12-17-2011, 06:48 PM   #40 (permalink)
I believe in Masai

giant steps

 
'trane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 17,047
Representing:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 007nites View Post
Why is child support needed when she will get half of the assets anyway? The assets alone will probably be enough to last generations. With the child support I'm assuming that she will inherit a certain percentage of every pay check that Kobe makes. I'm not a Kobe fan by any means but the whole no-prenup process just seems unfair.
i don't know the specifics of the child support/spousal support split in this situation. the reality is that she is entitled to both as a member of a union that is dissolving. your idea implies that the man, or the primary breadwinner, is somehow entitled to what he or she earned. this is simply not the case, since the family unit implies that he earned it to be shared by all of them, not just for himself. the arrangement you are talking about is a really old school idea of families that the man (primary breadwinner) is in control and the others are subject to his individuality. the law has not seen a marriage that way in a long time.

curious - when you say 'not fair' do you mean just to the primary breadwinner? because, to me, the issue of fairness is by no means specific to that person. and much of that fairness needs to take into account the nature of their roles in the partnership over the last 10 years. their vow to be together in that union is now being broken, and the promises that were part of that need to be attended to.

in this case, the money is not kobe's, it is the bryant family's. and the child support is not for vanessa bryant, it is for their children. that is why it is needed. otherwise, what is to prevent vanessa from taking the whole ball of wax and disappearing? she has no more and no less responsibility towards her kids than kobe does.
'trane is online now   Boss Key Wife Key Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright RaptorsForum.com 2005-2011

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24