Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO worth $137 billion, to divorce wife of 25 years
#21
(01-29-2019, 07:06 PM)Ipay4 Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:17 AM)btsstuff Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 02:11 AM)Ipay4 Wrote: I'd not worry, guys that rich can buy the judge who will hear their case, he will settle for a small amount compared to his overall wealth.  The guys who get divorced raped tend to be middle class, even in the low millions, but billionaires are safe.

Washington is a community property state. She's entitled to half.

The laws just don't apply to rich dudes in the same way, they are meant for scrubs, his rich lawyers will pull all kinds of rabbits out of all kinds of hats, she will know this and will take less than half, be rich for ever, and he will keep the vast majority of his wealth.
Rich dudes like that get good crooked lawyers who walk into the chief justices room put a suitcase full of money on the table and tell him, not ask, tell him which judge to appoint to the case, who give them the decisions they want, in America, even justice is for sale if you are rich enough.

I defy you to post ONE EXAMPLE of a wealthy person in a community property state who was able to get around that law in a divorce within the last 15 years.

Take your time. I'll wait....
White Girl Connoisseur

Reply
#22
(01-29-2019, 08:38 PM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 07:06 PM)Ipay4 Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:17 AM)btsstuff Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 02:11 AM)Ipay4 Wrote: I'd not worry, guys that rich can buy the judge who will hear their case, he will settle for a small amount compared to his overall wealth.  The guys who get divorced raped tend to be middle class, even in the low millions, but billionaires are safe.

Washington is a community property state. She's entitled to half.

The laws just don't apply to rich dudes in the same way, they are meant for scrubs, his rich lawyers will pull all kinds of rabbits out of all kinds of hats, she will know this and will take less than half, be rich for ever, and he will keep the vast majority of his wealth.
Rich dudes like that get good crooked lawyers who walk into the chief justices room put a suitcase full of money on the table and tell him, not ask, tell him which judge to appoint to the case, who give them the decisions they want, in America, even justice is for sale if you are rich enough.

I defy you to post ONE EXAMPLE of a wealthy person in a community property state who was able to get around that law in a divorce within the last 15 years.

Take your time. I'll wait....

Charles Brandes, California.  I think it is in your city too, San Diego right?
Net worth, 1.3 billion, got off paying his wife less than $100 million (around 76 million)

Quote:San Diego County's richest man would remain so under a recently-issued court ruling dividing the assets of billionaire Charles Brandes and his ex-wife, Linda.

The ruling orders Charles to give Linda $10 million -- actually $10,052,042 -- "to equalize the division of community property" and an additional $485,000 a month in spousal support.
This comes on top of a preliminary settlement the couple reached in 2005. That left Charles with two homes, including a $60 million estate he was building in Rancho Santa Fe, but gave Linda five residences worth more than $40 million, an art collection valued at $7.3 million and $19 million in cash.

Large sums, yet Judge Jeffrey S. Bostwick’s ruling may seem like a defeat to Linda and her legal team. (Lawyers for both parties did not return phone calls for comment.) Linda’s advocates had argued her share of assets acquired during the couple’s 18-year marriage amounted to $453 million to $597 million. And to maintain her “opulent lifestyle,” Linda argued she needed spousal support of $735,000 a month.

Bostwick acknowledged that his decision leaves Charles — whose worth Forbes magazine last month estimated at $1.3 billion, more than any other county resident — with roughly 91 percent of the parties’ combined incomes.
But the judge agreed with Charles’ lawyers, that most of his wealth flows from the profits of Brandes Investment Partners (BIP), a money management firm he founded but no longer controls.
“Additionally,” Bostwick wrote in his 30-page decision, “it should not be overlooked that Linda will exit this marriage with more than $100 million, hardly an insignificant sum.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdu...story.html

The laws just don't apply to the rich like that man.  The judge will say well this lady got 9% in the Brandes case and the judge said it was fair, so Bezos wife will get around the same. We seen something similar with Craig McCaw, in California, he was worth like 1.8 billion but got off paying her just $400 million.
Reply
#23
(01-30-2019, 05:11 AM)Ipay4 Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:38 PM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 07:06 PM)Ipay4 Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:17 AM)btsstuff Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 02:11 AM)Ipay4 Wrote: I'd not worry, guys that rich can buy the judge who will hear their case, he will settle for a small amount compared to his overall wealth.  The guys who get divorced raped tend to be middle class, even in the low millions, but billionaires are safe.

Washington is a community property state. She's entitled to half.

The laws just don't apply to rich dudes in the same way, they are meant for scrubs, his rich lawyers will pull all kinds of rabbits out of all kinds of hats, she will know this and will take less than half, be rich for ever, and he will keep the vast majority of his wealth.
Rich dudes like that get good crooked lawyers who walk into the chief justices room put a suitcase full of money on the table and tell him, not ask, tell him which judge to appoint to the case, who give them the decisions they want, in America, even justice is for sale if you are rich enough.

I defy you to post ONE EXAMPLE of a wealthy person in a community property state who was able to get around that law in a divorce within the last 15 years.

Take your time. I'll wait....

Charles Brandes, California.  I think it is in your city too, San Diego right?
Net worth, 1.3 billion, got off paying his wife less than $100 million (around 76 million)

Quote:San Diego County's richest man would remain so under a recently-issued court ruling dividing the assets of billionaire Charles Brandes and his ex-wife, Linda.

The ruling orders Charles to give Linda $10 million -- actually $10,052,042 -- "to equalize the division of community property" and an additional $485,000 a month in spousal support.
This comes on top of a preliminary settlement the couple reached in 2005. That left Charles with two homes, including a $60 million estate he was building in Rancho Santa Fe, but gave Linda five residences worth more than $40 million, an art collection valued at $7.3 million and $19 million in cash.

Large sums, yet Judge Jeffrey S. Bostwick’s ruling may seem like a defeat to Linda and her legal team. (Lawyers for both parties did not return phone calls for comment.) Linda’s advocates had argued her share of assets acquired during the couple’s 18-year marriage amounted to $453 million to $597 million. And to maintain her “opulent lifestyle,” Linda argued she needed spousal support of $735,000 a month.

Bostwick acknowledged that his decision leaves Charles — whose worth Forbes magazine last month estimated at $1.3 billion, more than any other county resident — with roughly 91 percent of the parties’ combined incomes.
But the judge agreed with Charles’ lawyers, that most of his wealth flows from the profits of Brandes Investment Partners (BIP), a money management firm he founded but no longer controls.
“Additionally,” Bostwick wrote in his 30-page decision, “it should not be overlooked that Linda will exit this marriage with more than $100 million, hardly an insignificant sum.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdu...story.html

The laws just don't apply to the rich like that man.  The judge will say well this lady got 9% in the Brandes case and the judge said it was fair, so Bezos wife will get around the same. We seen something similar with Craig McCaw, in California, he was worth like 1.8 billion but got off paying her just $400 million.

Nope.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-...12105.html

Quote: In 1974, Charles founded BIP to provide investment advisory services in exchange for fees based on the percentage of clients' assets under management.   Charles and Linda met in 1983, when BIP was only marginally successful.   That year, BIP managed assets of $8.2 million and he had income of $44,148.

Charles and Linda each had two children from prior marriages.   After dating for a few months, Charles began proposing marriage, but Linda refused “unless he could show some initiative to make enough money to support” a family of six.   At Linda's request, he “changed his appearance, changed his clothes, changed his car and changed his work hours.”

The parties wed in August 1986.   At that time, Charles owned 90 percent of BIP. In 1985, Charles Brown, who was Charles's long-time client, purchased 10 percent of the business (10,000 shares after stock splits).   BIP's managed assets were approximately $20 million on the date of marriage, and by the end of 1986 they rose to $63 million.   BIP continued to grow, and Charles's income eventually afforded the parties “a very opulent lifestyle.”


The company preceded the marriage and therefore was not community property.

Nice try though...
White Girl Connoisseur

Reply
#24
(01-29-2019, 08:45 AM)kcjones Wrote: By law she is entitled to half. She may not have signed a prenup, but like Elon Musk did to his first wife, Bezos could have had her sign an agreement limiting her share of his fortune, as a prerequisite to Amazon going public/IPO. Even if that didn't happen, and they actually had an amicable split, she may not want to causes issues for Amazon.com, while still walking away a multi-billionaire. If she walks away with the house, and $6 billion dollars, Bezos looks like a pimp, and she doesn't have to change her lifestyle in any way.

Lets put this in perspective: To spend $6 Billion dollars, one would have to spend $547K every day for 30 years. This doesn't take into account the capitol gains she would make investing that fortune, which at 5% a year would be greater than $547K/day even after the 20% capital gains tax. Besides revenge, she doesn't gain anything by asking for more money.

Pass on tens of billions of dollars that is owed to her? Why would she do that?

Would you do that?
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
#25
(01-30-2019, 05:29 AM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:
(01-30-2019, 05:11 AM)Ipay4 Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:38 PM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 07:06 PM)Ipay4 Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:17 AM)btsstuff Wrote: Washington is a community property state. She's entitled to half.

The laws just don't apply to rich dudes in the same way, they are meant for scrubs, his rich lawyers will pull all kinds of rabbits out of all kinds of hats, she will know this and will take less than half, be rich for ever, and he will keep the vast majority of his wealth.
Rich dudes like that get good crooked lawyers who walk into the chief justices room put a suitcase full of money on the table and tell him, not ask, tell him which judge to appoint to the case, who give them the decisions they want, in America, even justice is for sale if you are rich enough.

I defy you to post ONE EXAMPLE of a wealthy person in a community property state who was able to get around that law in a divorce within the last 15 years.

Take your time. I'll wait....

Charles Brandes, California.  I think it is in your city too, San Diego right?
Net worth, 1.3 billion, got off paying his wife less than $100 million (around 76 million)

Quote:San Diego County's richest man would remain so under a recently-issued court ruling dividing the assets of billionaire Charles Brandes and his ex-wife, Linda.

The ruling orders Charles to give Linda $10 million -- actually $10,052,042 -- "to equalize the division of community property" and an additional $485,000 a month in spousal support.
This comes on top of a preliminary settlement the couple reached in 2005. That left Charles with two homes, including a $60 million estate he was building in Rancho Santa Fe, but gave Linda five residences worth more than $40 million, an art collection valued at $7.3 million and $19 million in cash.

Large sums, yet Judge Jeffrey S. Bostwick’s ruling may seem like a defeat to Linda and her legal team. (Lawyers for both parties did not return phone calls for comment.) Linda’s advocates had argued her share of assets acquired during the couple’s 18-year marriage amounted to $453 million to $597 million. And to maintain her “opulent lifestyle,” Linda argued she needed spousal support of $735,000 a month.

Bostwick acknowledged that his decision leaves Charles — whose worth Forbes magazine last month estimated at $1.3 billion, more than any other county resident — with roughly 91 percent of the parties’ combined incomes.
But the judge agreed with Charles’ lawyers, that most of his wealth flows from the profits of Brandes Investment Partners (BIP), a money management firm he founded but no longer controls.
“Additionally,” Bostwick wrote in his 30-page decision, “it should not be overlooked that Linda will exit this marriage with more than $100 million, hardly an insignificant sum.”

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdu...story.html

The laws just don't apply to the rich like that man.  The judge will say well this lady got 9% in the Brandes case and the judge said it was fair, so Bezos wife will get around the same. We seen something similar with Craig McCaw, in California, he was worth like 1.8 billion but got off paying her just $400 million.

Nope.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-...12105.html

Quote: In 1974, Charles founded BIP to provide investment advisory services in exchange for fees based on the percentage of clients' assets under management.   Charles and Linda met in 1983, when BIP was only marginally successful.   That year, BIP managed assets of $8.2 million and he had income of $44,148.

Charles and Linda each had two children from prior marriages.   After dating for a few months, Charles began proposing marriage, but Linda refused “unless he could show some initiative to make enough money to support” a family of six.   At Linda's request, he “changed his appearance, changed his clothes, changed his car and changed his work hours.”

The parties wed in August 1986.   At that time, Charles owned 90 percent of BIP. In 1985, Charles Brown, who was Charles's long-time client, purchased 10 percent of the business (10,000 shares after stock splits).   BIP's managed assets were approximately $20 million on the date of marriage, and by the end of 1986 they rose to $63 million.   BIP continued to grow, and Charles's income eventually afforded the parties “a very opulent lifestyle.”


The company preceded the marriage and therefore was not community property.

Nice try though...
Well now you are kind of changing the parameters because most men start their successful businesses BEFORE they get married, so obviously it drastically narrows the examples to be provided, but Bill Gross comes to mind.  Billinaire who founded his business after marriage in Cali paid his ex-wife like a $70 million settlement after court.

Also, while Amazon "officially" starts in 1994, we don't know if the lawyers will be able to "dig up" some document which suggest it started earlier say 1993, before the marriage.  There are not that many billionaires, of the ones who do get divorces many try to keep the details private, but of the public ones, who live in community state property, very few fit the parameters you gave (starting their business COMPLETELY after being married).

I'd be surprised if Bezos who seemed to plan this divorce, didn't have some consultation with lawyers to protect his money.

Andrew Beal did it partially, but through two divorces got off giving his ex's not much of his total businesses.
Steve Wynne seems to fit that category as well, he was worth around 2.7 billion, divorced his wife and paid her around $700 million and he started it after.  That being said, she was rich too, not as rich as him, but she still didn't get half of even the community property.
Reply
#26
(01-29-2019, 08:36 PM)Shotgun Styles Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:45 AM)kcjones Wrote: By law she is entitled to half.  She may not have signed a prenup, but like Elon Musk did to his first wife, Bezos could have had her sign an agreement limiting her share of his fortune, as a prerequisite to Amazon going public/IPO.  Even if that didn't happen, and they actually had an amicable split, she may not want to causes issues for Amazon.com, while still walking away a multi-billionaire.  If she walks away with the house, and $6 billion dollars, Bezos looks like a pimp, and she doesn't have to change her lifestyle in any way.  

Lets put this in perspective: To spend $6 Billion dollars, one would have to spend $547K every day for 30 years.  This doesn't take into account the capitol gains she would make investing that fortune, which at 5% a year would be greater than $547K/day even after the 20% capital gains tax.  Besides revenge, she doesn't gain anything by asking for more money.

Splitting the company's shares will have zero effect on it's solvency. It's like adding another name to your car registration. The car still runs just fine.

Except any stipulations / requirements for those shares Jeff is bound by, won't apply to his ex.  Its also quite precarious for her to now become a lead shareholder.
Reply
#27
(01-30-2019, 11:50 AM)btsstuff Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:45 AM)kcjones Wrote: By law she is entitled to half.  She may not have signed a prenup, but like Elon Musk did to his first wife, Bezos could have had her sign an agreement limiting her share of his fortune, as a prerequisite to Amazon going public/IPO.  Even if that didn't happen, and they actually had an amicable split, she may not want to causes issues for Amazon.com, while still walking away a multi-billionaire.  If she walks away with the house, and $6 billion dollars, Bezos looks like a pimp, and she doesn't have to change her lifestyle in any way.  

Lets put this in perspective: To spend $6 Billion dollars, one would have to spend $547K every day for 30 years.  This doesn't take into account the capitol gains she would make investing that fortune, which at 5% a year would be greater than $547K/day even after the 20% capital gains tax.  Besides revenge, she doesn't gain anything by asking for more money.

Pass on tens of billions of dollars that is owed to her? Why would she do that?

You are about to take part in a 300:1 reverse gangbang.  Does it matter than it could have been 1000:1, when you know good and well you aren't going to make it through 300 women?   What can you buy with $32 Billion that you can't with $6 Billion?

You should read this again: Lets put this in perspective: To spend $6 Billion dollars, one would have to spend $547K every day for 30 years. This doesn't take into account the capitol gains she would make investing that fortune, which at 5% a year would be greater than $547K/day even after the 20% capital gains tax.
Reply
#28
(01-30-2019, 12:59 PM)kcjones Wrote:
(01-30-2019, 11:50 AM)btsstuff Wrote:
(01-29-2019, 08:45 AM)kcjones Wrote: By law she is entitled to half.  She may not have signed a prenup, but like Elon Musk did to his first wife, Bezos could have had her sign an agreement limiting her share of his fortune, as a prerequisite to Amazon going public/IPO.  Even if that didn't happen, and they actually had an amicable split, she may not want to causes issues for Amazon.com, while still walking away a multi-billionaire.  If she walks away with the house, and $6 billion dollars, Bezos looks like a pimp, and she doesn't have to change her lifestyle in any way.  

Lets put this in perspective: To spend $6 Billion dollars, one would have to spend $547K every day for 30 years.  This doesn't take into account the capitol gains she would make investing that fortune, which at 5% a year would be greater than $547K/day even after the 20% capital gains tax.  Besides revenge, she doesn't gain anything by asking for more money.

Pass on tens of billions of dollars that is owed to her? Why would she do that?

You are about to take part in a 300:1 reverse gangbang.  Does it matter than it could have been 1000:1, when you know good and well you aren't going to make it through 300 women?   What can you buy with $32 Billion that you can't with $6 Billion?

You should read this again: Lets put this in perspective: To spend $6 Billion dollars, one would have to spend $547K every day for 30 years. This doesn't take into account the capitol gains she would make investing that fortune, which at 5% a year would be greater than $547K/day even after the 20% capital gains tax.

I don't understand your gangbang analogy because it's not 300 to one, she has equal status in this situation.

Once again, I ask would you personally pass on tens of billions of dollars that you are legally entitled to?
[Image: giphy.gif]
Reply
#29
If taking a settlement for a lesser amount means I can move on with my life quicker? ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!! At some point, the money reaches critical mass, where it generates more wealth than you can spend. But what you can't generate is time. So why waste it fighting over money that has no real world relevance to you?
Reply
#30
I think the National Enquirer is going to regret fucking with the richest man on the planet.
[Image: giphy.gif]
[-] The following 2 users Like btsstuff's post:
  • Chessmaster, poohbear
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)