Prenup Contested in Court
HE WAS a divorced, 67-year-old property developer worth tens of millions, while she was half his age.
They met on a dating site and he organised to fly to her home country in the Middle East to meet in person, promising to marry her if they hit it off.
Now, after a four-year marriage, she is contesting a prenup she signed on the eve of the wedding, which left her with just $50,000 of his fortune.
PRENUP OVERTURNED
When Ms Thorne’s application was initially heard, the Federal Circuit Court found that she had had no negotiating power when she signed the prenup, while “every bargaining chip and every power was in Mr Kennedy’s hands”.
“Ms Thorne’s powerlessness arises not only from her lack of financial equality, but also from her lack of permanent status in Australia at the time,” the court found, noting that she relied on Mr Kennedy “for all things” and had an emotional investment in the marriage.
Of course she had no fucking "power", she was a broke ass gold digger marrying for the cash.
It seems that logical can be used to overturn any prenup.... "He had more 'power' (read money) then her" - OF course you fucking idiot, why else would he be after a prenup if he didn't have more money than her?
How does this logic not apply to every prenup ever signed?
Moral of the story - PRENUPS ARE WORTHLESS.
HE WAS a divorced, 67-year-old property developer worth tens of millions, while she was half his age.
They met on a dating site and he organised to fly to her home country in the Middle East to meet in person, promising to marry her if they hit it off.
Now, after a four-year marriage, she is contesting a prenup she signed on the eve of the wedding, which left her with just $50,000 of his fortune.
PRENUP OVERTURNED
When Ms Thorne’s application was initially heard, the Federal Circuit Court found that she had had no negotiating power when she signed the prenup, while “every bargaining chip and every power was in Mr Kennedy’s hands”.
“Ms Thorne’s powerlessness arises not only from her lack of financial equality, but also from her lack of permanent status in Australia at the time,” the court found, noting that she relied on Mr Kennedy “for all things” and had an emotional investment in the marriage.
Of course she had no fucking "power", she was a broke ass gold digger marrying for the cash.
It seems that logical can be used to overturn any prenup.... "He had more 'power' (read money) then her" - OF course you fucking idiot, why else would he be after a prenup if he didn't have more money than her?
How does this logic not apply to every prenup ever signed?
Moral of the story - PRENUPS ARE WORTHLESS.