Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

9 Comments

  • I think the punchline here is “We’re not arguing about what you are. We’re haggling over the price.”

    Bob

  • She has a lack of self confidence, fears being poor and childless, is described as a Swedish Countess, signed a post-nup that (according to the article) she had crafted by her lawyer, but she certainly does not seem to have a lack of brass (or gold). If she needs over 53K a week to live on, what would she describe poor as?

    • By Roy B

  • A deal’s a deal, unless you’re a liberal congressman or Swedish royalty. She could date Rep. Barney Frank but I think he’s on the other team.

    I do recommend googling her – the jpegs are easy on the eyes… 😉

  • The ex-wife’s argument is utterly ridiculous. A deal is a deal, under Connecticut law, unless it is “unconscionable,” and $43 million is anything but unconscionable.

    Connecticut has adopted the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) largely unchanged. The judge should follow it, and uphold the post-nup. See C.G.S.A. 46b-36a to 46b-36j.

  • A quick bit of work with a calculator revels that with $43,000,000 in a non-interest bearing account, one could withdraw $53,000 a week for 15 and a half years without running out.

    • By Frank

  • And our family of 6 lives on much less than that IN A YEAR (!)

  • According to an article in the New York Post (http://www.nypost.com/seven/03192009/news/nationalnews/poor_little_36m_wifes_trial_opens_160315.htm), they got married in 2002 and Mr. David first filed for divorce in 2004. So they were married continuously for only about 2 years, although they did have some on and off reconciliations since then. So that $43 million seems like an enormous sum for alimony for a marriage of only two years, no matter how wealthy the husband.

    • By PhilG

  • Learn to live with disappointment.

    • By mojo

  • *shock* $53,000 per week? I wish I had that a year.

    Some people are unbelievable.