Don't Get Married, Exhibit #2,762: John Cleese Gets Fucked by the Long Strap-On of the Divorce Courts. Why would an ex-wife get more then half of his money?

therightclique · 2011-06-21T22:54:36+00:00

Something similar happened to Dave Foley. His wife basically ruined him. If you were asking yourself "What the fuck happened to Dave Foley?", there's your answer. I totally forgive him for Postal after hearing him on Marc Maron's WTF podcast. That poor, poor bastard.

DitkasMoustache · 2011-06-21T23:46:34+00:00

No idea why this showed up in my feed today, but as a divorce attorney I can explain a few things here:

Who "made" the money is often a complex question. The question of who gets it in a divorce starts there, but it doesn't end there. A spouse may have brought home the paycheck, but increase in value of money over time is generally marital property that gets split. I have a client right now who is probably getting 60% of the value of his wife's business, when we could probably acknowledge she did 90% of the work. And I think most fair would have been 70% split in his favor. I don't think it should be any different in the reverse, as may have been the case here.
There are a lot of facts missing in the articles, and no judge would order this settlement, nor bread-winning spouse agree to it, unless there is firm legal basis for the split this way. Too often these reports are only giving 5% of the scenario. It makes better news. MOST importantly: the reality is John Cleese here agreed to the settlement (this was reported as a settlement, not a court order, therefore I'm assuming that's accurate). I'd say that's consistent with divorce practice, since most cases are resolved by settlement before reaching a trial. If he's agreeing to this kind of deal, there are definitely MAJOR facts missing. It means he and his attorney felt the result would probably have been even worse had they let a judge or jury decide.
Marital fault can be a factor (not always, but can be, depends). If he cheated, if there was some shady business in hiding assets, any number of things. Again, there are some facts missing here that I'm certain influenced the outcome.
I represent mostly men, and my and my colleagues' opinion is that women are more likely get the short end of the financial stick. Not always, not even a lot of the time, but definitely more likely, and I think reports of shocking settlements/alimony/child support are vastly overexaggerated and vastly mischaracterized, due to what are (to me) glaring facts missing like this case. But overall I think both parties end up getting screwed equally. Why? Because divorce costs money, being single increases your expenses, and you're both going to suffer financially as a result. It's usually in my initial consultation that I caution clients their standard of living will likely decrease as a result of the divorce, at least at the outset. You're not entitled to maintain it just because you may make more money or all the money or equal money, though I always do my best to minimize the pain; that caveat lessens somewhat as the parties' financial assets increase. Both making $25k a year? Yeah, divorce is going to hurt both objectively. One making $35k and the other zero? REALLY going to hurt both objectively. One making $500k and the other $20k in a home business? Probably not going to hurt the breadwinner too much from a purely objective standpoint, but it's definitely going to hurt from his personal subjective standpoint. You get the drift. Again, I'm generalizing, so stories that conflict with my experience really aren't going to change my opinion here. The point is that divorce hurts, and sometimes it's "fair" for a breadwinning party to give up a ton of assets based on the facts.

TL;DR: Facts missing; don't think this report is too credible. Don't get too caught up in the hype; it's important to understand that divorces are truly case-by-case scenarios that do not lend well to broad conclusions regarding the state of the law regarding men or women or otherwise.

McChucklenuts · 2011-06-21T19:06:00+00:00

It's called

Start a company in your name only.
Make sure most of your liquid assets are under the name of that company - I am not saying that this somehow magically protects you- but in the initial stages it puts up some barriers between the money and the woman allowing you to more efficiently follow step 3
When divorce is filed move all assets out of company account by making cash withdrawal into briefcase.
Fly to Vegas and gamble for a day or 2 in front of witnesses who won't be able to testify how much you won/lost but will have seen you gambling. Go to a fuckton of casinos making it difficult for camera footage to be subpoenaed.
Claim you lost all the money keeping cash in a safe in your new residence. Wait until divorce is finalized .
Fly back to vegas and gamble for a day or 2 in front of witnesses who won't be able to testify how much you won/lost but will have seen you gambling. Go to a fuckton of casinos making it difficult for camera footage to be subpoenaed.
Claim the money as "winnings"- pay the necessary taxes- hey it sucks but its not as much as you would have lost in the divorce and better the government than her.
Profit

KronktheKronk · 2011-06-21T20:10:11+00:00

I dare say John,

say goodbye to half the money you see as a result of that one man show of yours, as well.

Justintoxicated · 2011-06-21T23:34:59+00:00

Alimony and the splitting of assets post divorce was originally designed previous to women in the workforce as a way of ensuring that any children or the stay at home mom is not completely screwed. Of course now the world is a much different place especially the labor market. Unfortunately the 50/50 split has become so boiler plate regardless of conditions (conditions which must be analyzed and judged which is why judges exist in the first place.) Potential earning should be a factor for both parties if both parties can earn adequate salaries then split all jointly owned property and leave it at that. If children are involved and there are no extemporaneous circumstances (no sneaky sperm bank thefts etc..) it should be until the child reaches 18 or the mother earns an income over a certain amount (if remarried joint income considered) at which point alimony based on custody would be assessed directly as the specific needs of the children which may be split or assessed as different percentages. We are truly living in a thoughtless archaic legal system void of the analytic abilities necessary for a civil rational society.

VirSaturnA · 2011-06-22T01:20:56+00:00

I saw him live about two years ago and he spent a quarter of the time complaining about this situation, complete with a slideshow showing all the things he could have done with the money his ex-wife was stealing from him. The bitterness was tangible but he still made us all laugh hysterically with the delivery.

ghebert001 · 2011-06-21T19:45:36+00:00

I lol'd at "Screwy von Thundercunt"...I am so stealling that!

2011-06-21T21:25:01+00:00

more than half.

KMFCM · 2011-06-21T20:17:28+00:00

More like, don't get divorced.

Il128 · 2011-06-22T00:52:24+00:00

Pussy is expensive.

2011-06-22T02:19:13+00:00

That would make any man walk silly.

FartAwayYourWorries · 2011-06-22T03:00:59+00:00

His wife looks like John Travolta.

BukkRogerrs · 2011-06-21T22:49:46+00:00

This is why men kill their wives instead of going through the hell of a divorce. For all women who cry about inequality, simply point them to divorce. They'll shut up fast.

sfacets · 2011-06-22T00:17:36+00:00

♩ ♪ ♫ Always look on the bright side of death... ♩ ♪ ♫

Alanna · 2011-06-22T02:30:26+00:00

If you are with a girl sexually for a year or so, can she sue?

harryballsagna · 2011-06-22T02:43:18+00:00

My wife makes quite a bit more than I do and she will continue to do so the longer she works. However, no matter what she did, unless she screwed me out of my money, I could not imagine a situation where I would try to get half of her stuff.

In this case, it's in the millions and I can't help but think that anybody who wouldn't voluntarily forego anything more than a million is a fucking scumbag. I don't care if you're married to Bill Gates, right is right.

2011-06-22T09:15:25+00:00

'cum hoc ergo propter hoc'

What's that?

The true tragedy is that someone of genuine talent is having to give money to a parasite. As a psychotherapist she is ripping of her clients given that the assumption is that she is stable and adjusted as such she can help them become stable and adjusted. In fact she is just a legal con artist.

VoidPointer2005 · 2011-06-22T11:25:44+00:00

I find this post offensive to strap-ons. :P

BolshevikMuppet · 2011-06-22T19:34:58+00:00

While I don't agree with maintenance payments, the payment of half of his assets is fair.

If the money is earned during the life of the marriage, it belongs to both people in equal share. The courts don't want to get into a he-said/she-said argument of who actually "earned" the money, since there's no way to place an economic value on companionship and the intangibles of marriage. Instead, they treat the married couple as one entity for the life of the marriage (c.f. Ownership by the Entirety) and thus a divorce is splitting the person, and the assets, in half.

Part of it is also investment-backed expectations. It's crappy to view marriage as an investment, but let's be cynical.

If I pay for my wife's medical school expenses/tuition, I am investing in the expectation that my life will improve due to the eventual reaping of those rewards. The same metric is applied sometimes in marriage in general, I am investing in the relationship with the expectation of communal assets and companionship. If that ends, I should still reap some of the rewards of my investment.

That said, please remember that he didn't get "fucked by divorce courts". He willingly entered into an agreement to separate from his wife. Did he overpay? Probably. Did he do so to avoid a messy divorce? Maybe. But, that's him doing it willingly.

imgonnacallyouretard · 2011-06-22T21:33:39+00:00

Cleese should have been smart enough to sign a prenup in 1992. His fault.

brunt2 · 2011-06-23T18:56:03+00:00

Newsflash: I've outed the philigator poster here as a pretender and feminist troll (tomek has reached a similar conclusion independently based on the discussion between the 'lawyer' and indog- well done tomek and indog) The individual in question began discussion in a reasonable manner but descended quickly into weasel words and outright laughable bias. Hope everyone gets the memo.

trackerbishop · 2011-06-21T22:23:42+00:00

She's Jewish, he isn't. She deserves more of the money.

secretredfoxx · 2011-06-22T00:44:56+00:00

fuck everything about this.
thanks for a little rage session.

carchamp1 · 2011-06-22T01:55:13+00:00

"Don't get married"? How about "get a prenup"?

Marriage doesn't fail "just because". It fails when one or both partners let it fail, either by deliberately torpedoing it (affairs, abuse, etc.) or by simply neglecting it. Also, while people like to cite the 50% divorce statistic, they always overlook the fact that the other 50% stay together.

Title	Don't Get Married, Exhibit #2,762: John Cleese Gets Fucked by the Long Strap-On of the Divorce Courts. Why would an ex-wife get more then half of his money?
Author	curious67
Upvotes	165
Comments	140
Date	June 21, 2011 6:17 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/i5g9v/dont_get_married_exhibit_2762_john_cleese_gets/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/dont-get-married-exhibit-2762-john-cleese-gets.1038331 https://theredarchive.com/post/1038331

Comments