[Roosh]

Nearly half a billion..

Mel Gibson's Ex Wife Takes Half His Estimated $850 Million in Divorce Settlement
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,...?hpt=hp_t2

[Excelsior]

http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,...?hpt=hp_t2

Quote:

Because the couple didn't have a prenuptial agreement, Robyn, 55, was legally entitled to half of everything he earned during their marriage.

This is why you don't marry early (if you insist on getting married at all). He married her prior to entering his prime earning years and remained married to her during the duration of those years.

Gibson made most of his money from 1977-2002. His last big role was in 2002's "Signs", which grossed over $400 million. By this point, he'd already made all his big films (Braveheart, Lethal Weapon 1-4, Pocahontas, Ransom, etc) and cashed his largest paychecks. Any woman he married after this would have been unable to touch those hundreds of millions of dollars, and a pre-nup could easily have kept them from trying to get at any of the royalties either.

Because he married prior to his prime and didn't even try to sign a pre-nup, he risked all of that cash.
Guys, take heed-there is very little incentive in this society to get married at all, and even less incentive to marry young-in fact, doing so is downright dangerous. Don't do it. You'd also be a fool not to have a pre-nup to protect you if you do go through with it later on in life.

The worst part of it all:

Quote:

As for film residuals, Robyn is entitled to half of every future check Gibson receives for the rest of his life.

As if nearly half a billion dollars wasn't enough...

[rudebwoy]

He also has a ton of kids with her, but I am sure he does not care about the money.

The funny thing about him was he was going through some drama recently with a russian/ukranian chick he knocked up. Some dudes never learn.

[Vacancier Permanent]

Shit, that's a ton crap of coins....
How about Paul McCartny's ex who also got almost half a billion...the legal system is truly f-up here in Murka.
The one word that royally pisses me off whenever I hear it, even more so when spoken by a woman is "entitled". Probably the ugliest word in the entire dictionnary....

[Pilgrim37]

She's had about 8 of his kids ,she deserves it..it'll pay for the surgery!
Don't agree with future earnings though,that IS Bullshit!

He would have made most out of Passion of the Christ I think as he financed it so he would have pocketed most of the box office..which was in the high numbers.

I love listening to that tape of the conversation with the Russian:

"JUST SMILE AND BLOOW MEE!"

"I'LL PUT YOU IN A ROSE GARDEN!"

Classic

Russian girls are for playtime not relationships.

[Pusscrook]

(12-24-2011 01:16 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Nearly half a billion..

Mel Gibson's Ex Wife Takes Half His Estimated $850 Million in Divorce Settlement
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,...?hpt=hp_t2

Ummm, I think Rupert "Darth Sidious" Murdoch, divorce from Anna Murdoch, was a lot more than that. 1.2 b

[Andreas]

why give half billion to a woman when you can give something like 20 million to an expert hitman to kill her and seem as if it wasn't your fault?

[joehoya]

(12-24-2011 03:12 PM)Andreas Wrote:  

why give half billion to a woman when you can give something like 20 million to an expert hitman to kill her and seem as if it wasn't your fault?

The certainty of losing half of your vast fortune is better than the risk of losing all of your freedom. I don't agree with the verdict at all, but if I still have $400 Million in the bank, I would just chalk it up to being a dumbass when I was young, as opposed to spending my life in prison trying to save money I won't be able to spend anyway.

My man, Chris Rock put it best:
You got twenty million and your wife wants ten, big deal, you ain’t starvin’! But if you got thirty thousand, and your wife wants fifteen, you might have to kill her!

[MikeCF]

This is one of the few divorce settlements I'm not that mad at.

She was with him for 30 years, had 7 kids, and no doubt turned her back on his many infidelities.

Mel Gibson would have been Mel Gibson without her.

But she was with him before he was big, and they built a life together.

[MikeCF]

(12-24-2011 01:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

This is why you don't marry early (if you insist on getting married at all). He married her prior to entering his prime earning years and remained married to her during the duration of those years.

Intuitively you'd think that's right.

But when you get some money, you find you can't really trust people. Are they with you for "you," or to get at your cash?

So if you get married later in life, it's harder to know if it's "pure" love.

If you're going to get married, probably Gibson did it right. He was with a women for 30 years, had 7 children with her, and built a life together.

[Timoteo]

Gibson's wife Robyn's whole existence was to have and take care of Mel's kids. They are staunchly Catholic, thus didn't believe in birth control. They were married originally in Australia, but since they largely settled and lived in California, that's where the divorce was filed. I don't have a major problem with her getting what she got from Mel. Now him knocking up some random bitch was dumb on his part, so just for his stupidity, he should get burned.

As for McCartney, he was married and the divorce was filed in the UK, so their matrimonial law probably mirrors that of the US. McCartney comes across as a bit of a simp - he loves the idea of being in love and being married. He's took the plunge again, this time with an American chick, Nancy Shevell (I think that's her name). She from money, so I'm wondering if he pre-nupped. Because he's such a romantic, probably not.

[alphaspiraton]

Hey Roosh,

I think this is going to be the most expensive divorce in history when finalized:

$6 billion!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...story.html

[Dash Global]

So that means Gibson has/had 800 million in the bank or in assets?!?!

Jesus!

[Excelsior]

(12-24-2011 04:47 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(12-24-2011 01:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

This is why you don't marry early (if you insist on getting married at all). He married her prior to entering his prime earning years and remained married to her during the duration of those years.

Intuitively you'd think that's right.

But when you get some money, you find you can't really trust people. Are they with you for "you," or to get at your cash?

So if you get married later in life, it's harder to know if it's "pure" love.

Plenty of men who thought they had "pure love" have found themselves getting annihilated in family court later on. "True Love" becomes a lot colder, less trustworthy and more calculating then, especially when the former apple of your eye is intent on extracing a pound of your flesh and has the full weight of the American legal system behind her. Suddenly, she is no more of a friend to you than a common gold-digger.

Marrying late as a male may not be the most romantic option when juxtaposed with many idealized scenarios of "young love", but it is by far the most practical (again, assuming that you insist upon getting married at all). In our world, practicality must be the primary concern. The age of romanticism passed long ago.

Quote:

If you're going to get married, probably Gibson did it right. He was with a women for 30 years, had 7 children with her, and built a life together.

If you're ok with having the proverbial AK-47 pointed at your head by American family law, then go ahead and do this.

This is a nice romantic notion and there is nothing wrong with holding it as a male. The problem is that we live in a society that punishes men with more sentimental, romantic mindsets like this. Men simply can't afford to be this way in the US (and many other parts of the west)-you either play the game and get wise (necessitating more cynicism), or get played. These are the only real options.

We live in an era that belongs to the cynical cad, not the loving, devoted romantic.

[MikeCF]

(12-24-2011 10:17 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

(12-24-2011 04:47 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(12-24-2011 01:37 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  

This is why you don't marry early (if you insist on getting married at all). He married her prior to entering his prime earning years and remained married to her during the duration of those years.

Intuitively you'd think that's right.

But when you get some money, you find you can't really trust people. Are they with you for "you," or to get at your cash?

So if you get married later in life, it's harder to know if it's "pure" love.

Plenty of men who thought they had "pure love" have found themselves getting annihilated in family court later on. "True Love" becomes a lot colder, less trustworthy and more calculating then, especially when the former apple of your eye is intent on extracing a pound of your flesh and has the full weight of the American legal system behind her. Suddenly, she is no more of a friend to you than a common gold-digger.

Marrying late as a male may not be the most romantic option when juxtaposed with many idealized scenarios of "young love", but it is by far the most practical (again, assuming that you insist upon getting married at all). In our world, practicality must be the primary concern. The age of romanticism passed long ago.

Quote:

If you're going to get married, probably Gibson did it right. He was with a women for 30 years, had 7 children with her, and built a life together.

If you're ok with having the proverbial AK-47 pointed at your head by American family law, then go ahead and do this.

This is a nice romantic notion and there is nothing wrong with holding it as a male. The problem is that we live in a society that punishes men with more sentimental, romantic mindsets like this. Men simply can't afford to be this way in the US (and many other parts of the west)-you either play the game and get wise (necessitating more cynicism), or get played. These are the only real options.

We live in an era that belongs to the cynical cad, not the loving, devoted romantic.

Do you think that your 20-year-old self knows something that rich American men already don't?

Sure, the average American man is a dupe.

Talk to some seven, eight, and nine figure guys. You'll see that they get this stuff.

When you're an older man with some accomplishment and a little pocket change, you'll understand completely this mindset: "Yeah, I'm going to get fucked over in the end. Oh well. It'll be worth the ride."

[sine wave killer]

(12-24-2011 11:22 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

When you're an older man with some accomplishment and a little pocket change, you'll understand completely this mindset: "Yeah, I'm going to get fucked over in the end. Oh well. It'll be worth the ride."

I don't think anything like that will ever be worth the ride.

[MikeCF]

In truth, while the large settlements get headlines, the real injustice is what happens to the kind of guys who read these boards.

Try affording alimony and child support while making $50,000 - or even $100,000. The average joe who has to pay $3,000 a month in alimony and support, while paying comparatively little to Gibson, is the guy who is going to go into arrears on payments.

Look at what you earn. Imagine that 25-50% of that is gone.

How would you live?

Mel Gibson and Tiger Woods won't have that stress.

[MikeCF]

(12-25-2011 02:06 AM)sine wave killer Wrote:  

(12-24-2011 11:22 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

When you're an older man with some accomplishment and a little pocket change, you'll understand completely this mindset: "Yeah, I'm going to get fucked over in the end. Oh well. It'll be worth the ride."

I don't think anything like that will ever be worth the ride.

When you make millions a year, your mindset is different.

You want to protect your assets, but if you get raped in divorce court, while that will embitter you, you'll be fine. You'll be able to pay your bills without stressing.

So the risk is entirely different.

[Andreas]

Quick question: if you run out of money because of child support payments, do you go to jail? If so, do you still have to pay when your "free"?

[Timoteo]

(12-25-2011 06:34 AM)Andreas Wrote:  

Quick question: if you run out of money because of child support payments, do you go to jail? If so, do you still have to pay when your "free"?

That's the irony...they'll lock you up if you can't pay, but if you're locked up you don't have the ability to work and pay. And if you have a conviction/incarceration on your record, it makes it harder to get a job. Child support arrears continue to compile...it isn't a debt that is forgiven.

[MikeCF]

(12-25-2011 06:34 AM)Andreas Wrote:  

Quick question: if you run out of money because of child support payments, do you go to jail? If so, do you still have to pay when your "free"?

Yes.

The idea of men not paying child support is a total lie.

In many states, child support payments are directly withheld from one's paycheck - just like state and federal income taxes, and FICA.

Thus, when the guy's payments are low, it's because his hours had been cut, and thus his paycheck (and consequent withholding) was smaller.

Those guys then go to jail.

Child support debt also accrues while in prison.

Child support debt cannot be walked away from in bankruptcy.

It's a modern day's debtor prison.

That's why any guy not in seven figures, is a complete fool who gets married.

[UgSlayer]

She just got old, I guess. He couldn't get it up for her. Better her than that Russian cunt. Still...half a billion.....