queensmith:

@damola
erm so what is used to raise and care for children? dust and sand?  what is love and care without - money shelter clothing and education? and what does being Nigerian have to do with anything? they don't live in Nigeria?

if the parents died then the parents are dead- in this case the parents are still alive- they need to minimise the pressure on the children after the divorce.

im sure the man hasn't ditched any meetings to be with his family lol! lets not make meaningless assumptions here- like i said before- if a man was pay for what women have historically contributed towards marriage he will be paying more than a lifetime of earnings. If one was to put a value on getting pregnant and having children alone most won't be able to afford it,

lets not even forget, this man can afford it, the 20million isnt comparable to the man paying half his salary in alimony and child support, and even losing his house.

You are a cretin!

What value do you put on pregnancy. Poor women don't have children? They get paid for it?

She didn't want the children?

queensmith:

@damola
erm so what is used to raise and care for children? dust and sand?  what is love and care without - money shelter clothing and education? and what does being Nigerian have to do with anything? they don't live in Nigeria?

if the parents died then the parents are dead- in this case the parents are still alive- they need to minimise the pressure on the children after the divorce.

im sure the man hasn't ditched any meetings to be with his family lol! lets not make meaningless assumptions here- like i said before- if a man was pay for what women have historically contributed towards marriage he will be paying more than a lifetime of earnings. If one was to put a value on getting pregnant and having children alone most won't be able to afford it,

lets not even forget, this man can afford it, the 20million isnt comparable to the man paying half his salary in alimony and child support, and even losing his house.

Ok, lets assume the woman is a house wife. Does that mean she stays with her kids 24/7,  no,  she's got at least 4 nannies.

So, lets do it like this,  Children that are not happy with £2M,  go and stay with your father anytime you like,  he's still got 4 nannies,  and you can fly in his jet with him to meetings,  and anytime you want you can come home for mummy's love.

It's that simple,  and that possible. Most rich people don't live with their kids, other people are responsible for them. So, nothing has changed!,  only money.

Sagamite:

Don't mind the person! What is more important to a child, affluence or having a father?

Yet the same system is created to guarantee the children the former but is utterly toothless if the ex-wife denies the kids the latter.

In the best interest my arse! Senseless laws created by cretins!

Brilliantly put!

Right now, am simply just tripping for the brilliance exhibited by the man, else, did you know they just sacked half of the company staff just because madam wants half of money, just because she can screw and bare kids, thousands of lives are messed up ,

ItsModella:

I don't think any spouse, male or female, should get a significant portion of their partners wealth in the event of a divorce, unless they can prove they played a major part in accruing that wealth. Someone who marries a wealthy person generally gets to live an opulent life. But in the event of a separation, it is unreasonable that the wealthy person would upkeep the glamorous and comfortable lifestyle of the other person throughout their lifetime and give them a ridiculously huge sum portion of the wealth that must have taken a long time to build.

I agree, I am more for dividing the property based on equitable contributions to the wealth. I would make an exception for spouses who suffered abuse, were cheated on, or were forced to remain housewives during the marriage.

another greedy thief who thinks being a wife is an automatic right to leech off the wealth of others.

ileobatojo:

I agree, I am more for dividing the property based on equitable contributions to the wealth. I would make an exception for spouses who suffered abuse, were cheated on, or were forced to remain housewives during the marriage.

I disagree with you on the latter half of your statement except it is a divorce in Saudi Arabia.

They have choices and freedom, no one forced them to remain there.

My only exception is when there is a mutual agreement to be a housewife. The state has no business in the dynamics of relationships. Would you fine her for using sex as a weapon too?

damola1:

Ok, lets assume the woman is a house wife. Does that mean she stays with her kids 24/7,  no,  she's got at least 4 nannies.

So, lets do it like this,  Children that are not happy with £2M,  go and stay with your father anytime you like,  he's still got 4 nannies,  and you can fly in his jet with him to meetings,  and anytime you want you can come home for mummy's love.

It's that simple,  and that possible. Most rich people don't live with their kids, other people are responsible for them. So, nothing has changed!,  only money.

regardless of the nannies if she's a non working housewife she will be with the kids? don't you think? she will be their full time carer, it doesnt matter how much help they can afford, she will still be defined as the homemaker. The children will still be attached to her in that sense and daddy is more or less useless (if he hasnt stayed at home) so all he's really needed for is the money- which he is forced to part with during the divorce!

and  no court will want the children in care of nannies in place of their mother (or whoever has been caring for them from the start).

Seriously for a forum which drives responses like 'submit to your husband' 'do whatever your husband says' 'stay at home dont work its more fulfilling' the men sure do know how to complain when ish hits the fan!

queensmith:

regardless of the nannies if she's a non working housewife she will be with the kids? don't you think? she will be their full time carer, it doesnt matter how much help they can afford, she will still be defined as the homemaker. The children will still be attached to her in that sense and daddy is more or less useless (if he hasnt stayed at home) so all he's really needed for is the money- which he is forced to part with during the divorce!

and  no court will want the children in care of nannies in place of their mother (or whoever has been caring for them from the start).

Seriously for a forum which drives responses like 'submit to your husband' 'do whatever your husband says' 'stay at home dont work its more fulfilling' the men sure do know how to complain when ish hits the fan!

if you paid attention you would note that most of the men here are averse to the above in highlights.

ItsModella:

I don't think any spouse, male or female, should get a significant portion of their partners wealth in the event of a divorce, unless they can prove they played a major part in accruing that wealth. Someone who marries a wealthy person generally gets to live an opulent life. But in the event of a separation, it is unreasonable that the wealthy person would upkeep the glamorous and comfortable lifestyle of the other person throughout their lifetime and give them a ridiculously huge sum portion of the wealth that must have taken a long time to build.
That being said, the judge should not allow the use of tribal law. He was married and lives in the UK and as such should go through the British court system.

Seldom do you see a wife and a husband in business without any active role. Case study: Russell and Kimora Simmons. Even after Phat farm was sold, she's made CEO. Cos, she got the brains. Am telling you, men give advise to women free of charge, women seldom give except political advise, and it's give and take. So really, they only deserve payment for the kids upkeep, anything more, not cool, na cheating!

[b][size=16pt]Well, everyone has something to say about marriage, isn't it? 

Including those who have not, and does not know what it is to be married.

When he should have married a Nigerian woman, who would have only settle for a Million Pound when things go wry and go home (if she'd ever divorce him) instead he wanted him pikins to look white when he, himself is black. Some would say na choice, nobe so o?? Well, na choice but also take the package that comes with it, and shut up!

Make he settle the lady quick and stop looking for ways to hide away the 'Nuts' here and there because, anywhere he hid them - them go be dug up!

Remember, most of his investments might have been concentrated/focused in the Western world and with this in mind, where's he escaping from? And, how far could he run with the 'Nuts'.  Either way, he will definitely pay up!

Also remember, he's dealing with the British - 48+ Countries of the World are their friends so, where ever he hid the money will be excavated, piled together, apportioned and shared appropriately and we'll witness justice being done under our own eyes here, won't we? Kpele o if I have ruffled feathers here!  

Some are hailing/calling him a smart Nigerian guy, is he really?? Time will come when you all will be sorry for him because, Justice must be done.

Also, for some of you who disregards women, listen - wives also contributes to their family wealth in terms of sacrifices they make in marriage hence, the need to settle her if she doesn't want the marriage anymore.  

For example, giving up careers to raise a famly, managing the home and what about her cooking - the good 'ol English Breadfast, Roast pork and beef together with Yorkshire pud and gravy, bangers and mash, eh? What about the Apple pie, spotty d i c k etc that he enjoyed whilst being married to her?  

Aha, just back from a business trip - to an opulent and comfortable family environment, everything is ready waiting for him - warm bath/jaccuzi in the corner and deliciously succulent dinner to be washed down with good quality wine of preference, abi?  

What about her nursing him back to health from those complex headaches that wouldn't go away, those night fevers, catarrh and that sudden pains from ingrowth toenails he suffered, eh?  

And, what about her frequent oil massages on those stiff shoulders and tired legs she revived back to health, abi? 

And don't even mention, her healing soft hands touching those hairy chest and reassuring him of her love whilst viewing the bedroom ceiling, excuse me?

And finally, she is a trophy wife, isn't she?  Slim, blonde and probably blue eyed and has also given him blonde/red head heirs to his Kingdom - prince and princesses, abeg?

Perhaps, through her background and the people she knew before marrying him, some lucrative business connections did emerge, which may have contributed to this immense wealth so, why deprive her of her rights and contributions to this community wealth.  

She has a right to it and she must claim it - otherwise, another women whom I'm sure is waiting in the wings right now, will definitely claim without a flinch, all that she'd worked for in this marriage and with the level of affluence here, it will happens again, only time will tell!!

An Igbo proverb says, the same hand a man take marry the first wife - na the same hand igo take marry the second, the third and so, so, so etc and remember, a leopard never changes its spots! Whatever caused trouble for this marriage is likely to surface again in the next - watch this space!!!

So, anyone who say wives do not help to grow money, wealth in the family must think again because, the Legal system and its lawyers, the Economists, the Accountants and the Actuaries (i.e. Insurance) see it in a different light from you all who are ignorantly analysing what you don't understand about justice, time, profits, loss/wastage and settlements - the professionals do the sums accordingly, and not you lot!

So, make una go sidon, the woman deserves her divorce settlements and she must get them afterall, the Oba go keep a chunk of the wealth because of the business, his children and family's inheritance and, soon will be marrying another queen, and that lady won't go quietly either when it happens to her so, why must the first wife leave behind all she worked/contributed to, in the family for her second - So lady, take what belongs to you and move on - tough, that's life! [/size][/b]

ItsModella:

I don't think any spouse, male or female, should get a significant portion of their partners wealth in the event of a divorce, unless they can prove they played a major part in accruing that wealth. Someone who marries a wealthy person generally gets to live an opulent life. But in the event of a separation, it is unreasonable that the wealthy person would upkeep the glamorous and comfortable lifestyle of the other person throughout their lifetime and give them a ridiculously huge sum portion of the wealth that must have taken a long time to build.
That being said, the judge should not allow the use of tribal law. He was married and lives in the UK and as such should go through the British court system.

this is the thing- one person is going to lose out, its better the bread winner than the other. especially if theres children involved.

The main reason for the laws is so the lesser earner doesnt lose out after marriage- I agree with that 100%. If a woman has given up on a job, a career or whatever to raise the children (rather foolish decision but you have it) or stay at home and take care of the husband is she to blame when she no longer has the earning potential she has lost out on due to the marriage?

Its obvious the law can been abused but the bottom line cannot be argued.

queensmith:

this is the thing- one person is going to lose out, its better the bread winner than the other. especially if theres children involved.

The main reason for the laws is so the lesser earner doesnt lose out after marriage- I agree with that 100%. If a woman has given up on a job, a career or whatever to raise the children (rather foolish decision but you have it) or stay at home and take care of the husband is she to blame when she no longer has the earning potential she has lost out on due to the marriage?

Its obvious the law can been abused but the bottom line cannot be argued.

Why shouldnt the lesser earner lose out after marriage? Cant she go earn her own? What did she bring to the marriage that entitles her to maintain a lavish lifestyle that she does not merit? I could understand this law in cases where both parties have been married over 20 yrs and the other partner is clearly too old to go back to work. Beyond that, its become a ladder to undeserved wealth by the heather Mills of this world.

queensmith:

regardless of the nannies if she's a non working housewife she will be with the kids? don't you think? she will be their full time carer, it doesnt matter how much help they can afford, she will still be defined as the homemaker. The children will still be attached to her in that sense and daddy is more or less useless (if he hasnt stayed at home) so all he's really needed for is the money- which he is forced to part with during the divorce!

and  no court will want the children in care of nannies in place of their mother (or whoever has been caring for them from the start).

Seriously for a forum which drives responses like 'submit to your husband' 'do whatever your husband says' 'stay at home dont work its more fulfilling' the men sure do know how to complain when ish hits the fan!

Must you be paid to take care of your own kids?, the love from a child to a mother is un-quantifiable. This woman is getting paid!, for upkeep of kids, NOT HALF of the entire company!, we can't close business just because madam says no more.

@ damola- dont even lie!!!

even the poor lower middle class men on their meagre wages expect the wives to pack in the degrees and MBAs to cook and clean at home. kmt. Another site another culture I may agree with you but certainly not on this one.

You cant have it all, and i dont even pity the rich ones. Its the poor idiots that insisted their wives should not work only to end up shelling massive proportions of their salary in alimony and child support when divorce comes.

You definitely cannot have it all.

@sagamite I really thought you were more matured than this. I followed this topic from page 1 and noticed you called almost everybody with different views from yours cretins. Well let me say if you are trying to dissuade someone from an opinion it would be better to trade intelligent points and not insults.

And to everybody against this practice. Let me ask you what you have done personally to change it rather than limiting your rants to NL

Societies make and change laws as they see fit and most times this laws reflect the thinking of the general populace
Its just like an American having issues with Nigerias law on homosexuality. Or a Nigerian having issues with Americas law on polygamy.
If you have issues with such laws move over to your country

Sagamite:

I disagree with you on the latter half of your statement except it is a divorce in Saudi Arabia.

They have choices and freedom, no one forced them to remain there.

You’re right, but they should clean him out as they leave  
Maybe he won’t do it again next time!

Sagamite:

The state has no business in the dynamics of relationships.

Generally, perhaps. But when it comes to protecting the interests of the 'weak', ‘downtrodden', 'the used and abused'; it is fair that they step in. Should relax the extent of their intervention? Yes. But it was borne out of good intentions on the part of the state.

I can’t say that I fully understand the workings of the western mind when it comes to monetary affairs involving the married. I was completely befuddled when I learnt I could not pick my child as the primary beneficiary to my retirement account. If married, you HAVE to pick your spouse! That gave me some insight into how they operate though.

damola1:

Must you be paid to take care of your own kids?,  the love from a child to a mother is un-quantifiable. This woman is getting paid!,  for upkeep of kids,  NOT HALF of the entire company!,  we can't close business just because madam says no more.

your just trying to wind me up right? ok what are the children going to eat? where are they going to live? how they gonna get to school?

I remember an article from one of p diddys baby mamas; she stated that people hate on them because they believe all the women do is sit down and plan on how to spend the money! How can they!!! her son is the child of a rich man, he needs security, he needs insurance, he needs top education, he needs to enjoy the life his father can provide and he STILL needs the care of his mother!!!!

and you say no just so the rich can ditch the wife, the kids and keep the toys? I dont think so- once you enter marriage you know its a lifetime commitment and you stick by it. You dont like it you dont marry simple as!

all those supporting the ex-wife have missed an important point, he has offered her a generous lump sum, probably a house or two thrown in and monthly support payments for his children. Her demands are greedy and extreme. Why do you need $1M each year to look after your own children? It is ridiculous. The woman is a certified goldigger who sees her ex-husband as the ticket to becoming the Ivana Trump of Britain. Unfortunately for her, she is dealing with a very smart Nigerian businessman who didn't get to become wealthy by being conventional. I have a feeling that her divorce suit will be tied up for years and that she will have a very long hard battle ahead of her. And from the looks of this latest twist, I think Mr Prest will actually end up being the winner.

queensmith:

@ damola- dont even lie!!!

even the poor lower middle class men on their meagre wages expect the wives to pack in the degrees and MBAs to cook and clean at home. kmt. Another site another culture I may agree with you but certainly not on this one.

You cant have it all, and i dont even pity the rich ones. Its the poor idiots that insisted their wives should not work only to end up shelling massive proportions of their salary in alimony and child support when divorce comes.

You definitely cannot have it all.

When you are a big boy, you are a big boy, no woman cooks or clean, this is a fact. Recently, she traveled, and I was shocked the food the nanny gave me tasted exactly like what she's ' supposedly ' been delivering. I am not married oh!, How many house wives do you know personally without any businesses or investments or enjoyments, strictly for kids?,

I am telling you for a fact, no woman cooks or clean, the house helps do every damn thing!, they only smile and screw, and they can't give you any business advise anyways, unless you want it in ruins, so wetin we dey yarn here

queensmith:

your just trying to wind me up right? ok what are the children going to eat? where are they going to live? how they gonna get to school?

I remember an article from one of p diddys baby mamas; she stated that people hate on them because they believe all the women do is sit down and plan on how to spend the money! How can they!!! her son is the child of a rich man, he needs security, he needs insurance, he needs top education, he needs to enjoy the life his father can provide and he STILL needs the care of his mother!!!!

and you say no just so the rich can ditch the wife, the kids and keep the toys? I dont think so- once you enter marriage you know its a lifetime commitment and you stick by it. You dont like it you dont marry simple as!

And this man is very much willing to provide security, insurance, education, and everything along with it. Absolutely willing. No man will ever live his babies out in the cold, unless he's really a bastard. cos the kids will eventually take up the estate anyways,

Let her have enough to keep moving on, the kids can get whatever they want from their pops, anytime, he's very proud of them, but she needs to shake her ass and get to work, free lunch don't exist no more!, £2M is more than enough to even take care of her for the rest of her life

praetor:

all those supporting the ex-wife have missed an important point, he has offered her a generous lump sum, probably a house or two thrown in and monthly support payments for his children. Her demands are greedy and extreme. Why do you need $1M each year to look after your own children? It is ridiculous. The woman is a certified goldigger who sees her ex-husband as the ticket to becoming the Ivana Trump of Britain. Unfortunately for her, she is dealing with a very smart Nigerian businessman who didn't get to become wealthy by being conventional. I have a feeling that her divorce suit will be tied up for years and that she will have a very long hard battle ahead of her. And from the looks of this latest twist, I think Mr Prest will actually end up being the winner.

again- its relative- 20million and 2 million are very different, the generosity of his offer can be debated.

Although he's been given permission I doubt very much he will win, it takes a single act of fraud (which im sure he's committed) to throw him in prison and give the wife all she wants.

damola1:

And this man is very much willing to provide security, insurance, education, and everything along with it. Absolutely willing. No man will ever live his babies out in the cold, unless he's really a bastard. cos the kids will eventually take up the estate anyways,

Let her have enough to keep moving on, the kids can get whatever they want from their pops, anytime, he's very proud of them, but she needs to shake her Bottom and get to work, free lunch don't exist no more!, £2M is more than enough to even take care of her for the rest of her life

if he was willing he will pay the wife what she asked for- THE estate is a separate issue, something I'm sure they can't benefit from until they are of legal age. How is the wife meant to take care of them til then?
If she hasnt been working for the past how many years how on earth is she meant to work now?? HOW!!!!!

jedisco:

@sagamite I really thought you were more matured than this. I followed this topic from page 1 and noticed you called almost everybody with different views from yours cretins. Well let me say if you are trying to dissuade someone from an opinion it would be better to trade intelligent points and not insults.

Chineke! I no you before?

Biyi, is that you?

Mate, I am intelligent enough to know what approaches work for people based on reading of a few of their utterances.

ileobatojo:

You’re right, but they should clean him out as they leave  
Maybe he won’t do it again next time!

You no serious.  

ileobatojo:

Generally, perhaps. But when it comes to protecting the interests of the 'weak', ‘downtrodden', 'the used and abused'; it is fair that they step in. Should relax the extent of their intervention? Yes. But it was borne out of good intentions on the part of the state.

I can’t say that I fully understand the workings of the western mind when it comes to monetary affairs involving the married. I was completely befuddled when I learnt I could not pick my child as the primary beneficiary to my retirement account. If married, you HAVE to pick your spouse! That gave me some insight into how they operate though.

The state has absolutely no business in relationships. The state has done its part by setting criminal laws and giving liberty.

No one forced you to choose someone. No one can force you to stay with them. It is a free choice you made, if you are weak that is your business. Otherwise, the state should also get involved when women we approach turn us down after raising our hopes. We are weak too na.

Secondly, the state can not be privy to the events in a relationship to judge if an outcome is wrong. If people are not compatible, it is up to them to break up. It is not the states business.

Finally, it is people's human right to choose who they want to associate with or have relationships with.

queensmith:

your just trying to wind me up right? ok what are the children going to eat? where are they going to live? how they gonna get to school?

I remember an article from one of p diddys baby mamas; she stated that people hate on them because they believe all the women do is sit down and plan on how to spend the money! How can they!!! her son is the child of a rich man, he needs security, he needs insurance, he needs top education, he needs to enjoy the life his father can provide and he STILL needs the care of his mother!!!!

and you say no just so the rich can ditch the wife, the kids and keep the toys? I dont think so- once you enter marriage you know its a lifetime commitment and you stick by it. You dont like it you dont marry simple as!

This girl is a cretin! Nothing more than that. 

praetor:

all those supporting the ex-wife have missed an important point, he has offered her a generous lump sum, probably a house or two thrown in and monthly support payments for his children. Her demands are greedy and extreme. Why do you need $1M each year to look after your own children? It is ridiculous. The woman is a certified goldigger who sees her ex-husband as the ticket to becoming the Ivana Trump of Britain. Unfortunately for her, she is dealing with a very smart Nigerian businessman who didn't get to become wealthy by being conventional. I have a feeling that her divorce suit will be tied up for years and that she will have a very long hard battle ahead of her. And from the looks of this latest twist, I think Mr Prest will actually end up being the winner.

Thank you. Some cretin is still asking us what will the kids eat and how will they go to school.

ileobatojo:


I can’t say that I fully understand the workings of the western mind when it comes to monetary affairs involving the married. I was completely befuddled when I learnt I could not pick my child as the primary beneficiary to my retirement account. If married, you HAVE to pick your spouse! That gave me some insight into how they operate though.

I think this is because (for tax purposes) married couples are regarded as a single person.
If your children were to inherit from it then they have to pay taxes. your right the way some things are viewed here is extremely befuddling, my own problem is the religious aspects.

queensmith:

again- its relative- 20million and 2 million are very different, the generosity of his offer can be debated.

Although he's been given permission I doubt very much he will win, it takes a single act of fraud (which im sure he's committed) to throw him in prison and give the wife all she wants.

if he was willing he will pay the wife what she asked for- THE estate is a separate issue, something I'm sure they can't benefit from until they are of legal age. How is the wife meant to take care of them til then?
If she hasnt been working for the past how many years how on earth is she meant to work now?? HOW!!!!!

No where in the statement did it say the woman wasn't allowed to work, never worked, or compelled not to,

In fact, a simple google of her name shows she's working for a property dev. company:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/yasmin-prest/a/665/6b9
yasmin prest
Company Secretary at Elysium Diem Limited
London, United Kingdom Management Consulting
Current
Company Secretary at Elysium Diem Limited
Education
Cranfield University - Cranfield School of Management
Connections
51 connections
Public Profile
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/yasmin-prest/a/665/6b9
Share
PDF
Print
Experience

Company Secretary
Elysium Diem Limited
Currently holds this position

Education

Cranfield University - Cranfield School of Management
MBA, Business and Management
1994 – 1995

Well I doubt he would give her any sorts of grounds whatsoever to give her claims of him having a multimillion dollar fortune, stashed away somewhere, any validity at all.

He has stated that the company was started by his father and handed down to him and as such he isn't the sole owner of the business. For all you know he may not even be the majority shareholder. I think that he will many avenues to contest the court's judgement, one of which was his successful appeal. I still say that he will be successful and she will eventually have to accept a smaller payout or his original offer.

I think you all are missing something- RELATIVITY
You dont expect settlement of a spouse worth 5 Billion to be thesame with that of one worth 500 million under thesame circumstances.
Nobody is asking whether its too much or not enough. C'mon its just common sense

jedisco:

I think you all are missing something- RELATIVITY
You dont expect settlement of a spouse worth 5 Billion to be thesame with that of one worth 500 million under thesame circumstances.
Nobody is asking whether its too much or not enough. C'mon its just common sense

Why not?

divine2043:

Michael Priest is a celeb, as far as i am concerned. Ladies should not think they can come milk a guy dry. I reqlly hope the guy wins because I have not heard of the guy not taking care of his family. People should know what they are going into.

You cqn see the mentqlity of mqny women on here. You see thqt many Nigerian ladies (and some men) just wanna sit on their qsses qnd get married to a rich spouse. Money grabbers, get a job

The guy is likely to win.

I believe if the guy is this smart (divorce technique and money-making ability) he would have hidden most of his money. She herself does not know. They do not know his real worth, they are fighting over estimates that might be far lower. Even if she gets $20m, he could easily be worth $150m.

But he is being nice to give her what she can (at best) claim she is entitled to.