When Divorce Lawyers Get Greedy

Another woman who has "grown accustomed" to the leisurely high life on someone else's earnings and is now getting a divorce and making news. Associated Press Writer Dave Collins has the story.

A 36-year-old Swedish countess divorcing a former CEO says she cannot live on $43 million.

She should have married Paul McCartney.

Marie Douglas-David, a former investment banker, says she has no income and needs her 67-year-old husband, George David, to pay her more than $53,000 a week — more than most U.S. households make in a year — to cover her expenses.

And why doesn't she have any income?

David and Douglas-David married in 2002, but the marriage was in trouble by 2004, court papers show.

So let's see... if you count 2002 until now, $43 million is over six million dollars per year. And those weren't even all good years. That's not generous enough? What exactly did she do during this marriage? Did she cook? Clean? Do any actual domestic management? Raise his kids? Help him with work? Do his shopping for him? Care for him while he was sick? Look out for his health? Pick out his wardrobe? Look good on his arm? Provide consortium?

He could have been better off using that money to hire an image consultant, publicist, personal shopper, personal assistants, a nutritionist, a personal trainer, doctors and counselors, accountants, maids, cooks, an event planner and host, interior designer, professional consultants, and spend all of what would be left over on escorts and a harem.

Amid a series of reconciliations, the couple signed a postnuptial agreement in October 2005 that would give her $43 million when they divorce.

Douglas-David wants the agreement invalidated. She accused her husband of coercing her to sign it by preying upon her fears of being divorced and childless.

Either women are adults who can make their own decisions, or they aren't. The more judges – or Congressmen – toss out contracts, the harder it will be to get anything done. She agreed to the contract.

And notice... they don't have children together, unless they made some after she signed the post-nup. None are mentioned in the article, so my guess is that they didn't have any together and she probably didn't do much around the house, either.

She's asking to be awarded about $100 million in cash and stock, plus $130,000 a month in alimony.

Get a job!!!

David is asking a judge to uphold the agreement and order Douglas-David to vacate their Park Avenue apartment but keep their properties in Sweden.

Gee, what a heartless bastard.

Douglas-David has filed court papers showing she has more than $53,800 in weekly expenses, including for maintaining a Park Avenue apartment and three residences in Sweden. Her weekly expenses also include $700 for limousine service, $4,500 for clothes, $1,000 for hair and skin treatments, $1,500 for restaurants and entertainment, and $8,000 for travel.

1. Sell some of your places.
2. Learn to drive.
3. Wear some things more than once (it’s okay – clothes can be cleaned).
4. Learn to eat at home.
5. Learn how to shop online.
6. Buy some books and a home entertainment center.

You can keep up the hair and skin treatments. They might help you snag another sucker.

At that rate, Douglas-David would burn through $43 million in less than 16 years.

So??? I don’t know what the laws are there, but in California, the alimony rule is essentially one day of pay for every two days of marriage (provided the marriage lasted less than 10 years). So she should only get enough to last for three and a half years anyway - if the laws are the same.

Anne Dranginis, an attorney for David and retired Connecticut Appellate Court judge, predicted that Douglas-David will get much less money in the divorce if she doesn't accept the terms of the postnuptial.

I hope so. She should be punished for challenging a generous contract to which she agreed.

In court papers, Douglas-David said she quit her job as an investment banker for Lazard Asset Management to travel and entertain with David, who still earns $1 million a year from United Technologies.

So she's capable of making her own money. Let her.

When a woman and a man mutually agree to marry and that she'll stop or cut back on working outside the home so that she can take care of their children, him, their home, and some of their personal affairs, and then that husband breaks his vows and decides to leave while she has upheld her vows – I have no problem with a judge ordering him to pay 1) significant alimony; and 2) child support, hopefully to the point where she'll be able to raise the kids until they are grown, keep the house, and move on with her life. In fact, I think women agreeing to take up those roles and thus be out of the workforce should insist on pre-nups that will provide for her needs.

But I do not support gold-digging.