queensmith:

^^ fortunately for most of these posters you have to have money to do that. They have nothing to worry about.

rhymz:

whoever this person is, you need to shut the hell up. Writing an incoherent lengthy gibberish does not earn you any tangible point, FOOL!!
In your haste to sound smarter than you realy are you forget that the issue of permanent residency of the parties involved will render such a move useless. The marital courts in the US do not have any jurisdiction to hear any divorce case of couples who do not leave permanently or work in the US. Neither does a mere vacation to the country automatically confers them with jurisdiction on such cases.
Commenting with such an unbriddled arrogance like you are smarter or more exposed than every other person or Nigerians who do not see any legal sense in your lame arguments only exposes the malady of your ignorance. Your example is enough evidence of your utter un-intelligence and self-imposed mental confusion. Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall were British citizens, that gives the british marital courts the jurisdiction to hear the case, in the case of Mr and Mrs Priest none of them is a citizen or permanent residents in the US and you keep trying to arrogantly shout down everyone  that sees no sense in your legal abracadabra while you bask in your delusions of grandeur, shallow logic and useless legal pontifications that only make sense to you.
Abeg go sit your ignorant a$$ down and let intelligent commentators school you.
Let me borrow the C word from Saga; You are a Bono fide CRETIN with oversized Egos that do not fit.

Sagamite:

No one has to worry about you taking 50% because no one will marry an obese skank.

queensmith:

^^ then you shouldnt be arguing against this womans case- it makes no sense for a rich man to pay the same alimony as a poor one. Simples!

I agree someone shouldnt be thrown into poverty as a result of divorce, thats tough ,but someone has to bare the cost and better the man than the public,

Claus:

This is where the argument starts getting mixed up. Denying her the benefit of half his assets is not the same as saying he should pay her the same alimony as a poor man!

Sagamite:

Wow!

More stories that tell you that marriage in the West should only be done with a prenup if you are rich or have the ability to be rich. Otherwise you put your life in the hands on another, who then have the powers to fck it up all in the name of "faith" and "blind love".

God forbid!

Gbam!

Thank you, my brother.

My story is less serious than yours. I know a girl that was my female cousin's friends. I used to see her come and party with my cousin when they were still young. Some like 7 years later she came to my cousins birthday and my cousin was helping me recall who she was as she greeted me. Then my cousin was telling me later that she married another Nigerian in Ireland and left the UK. She had 2 kids for this guy before the marriage broke down after 5 years. This guy had been in Ireland for years and worked hard, before you can say Nwanyi, she was awarded 2 of his houses he invested his sweat in for being a housewife raising the kids and the court was generous enough to let him keep 1 remaining house. He had to be paying mortgage for 2 houses (the one he lived in and the one she lived in with the kids) and rent the last one out (sorry, when I say "he" rented out, she took the money, otherwise he would be paying 3 mortgages while she owned 2 of the houses). She is a sit-at-home mum, while he is bursting his longs working for her to be more wealthy than him.

That was how that man's life and plans were destroyed because he decided to marry under some crazy, lunatic laws in faith without protection.

I will do all I have to do to keep my money.

I don't need to convince any woman to sign a pre-nup. I will TELL her to sign it. Any resistance and I will end the relationship. It is not even a matter of discussion. Just walk away and delete her number.

Claus:

^^^
To show you how completely foolish and useless the laws are, Jay Z still had to get a pre-nup with Beyonce, a woman who is already a millionaire.

Why does a man have to be put in that position? So even if you marry a rich woman, as long as you are richer than she is, she is still entitled to your money in a divorce? Na wa o!

dayokanu:

A girl shared the story of her brother with me

Her brother was a Nigerian immigrant into America, Got married to an African American woman

The man worked his asss out and lived the American dream bought a very big house in Olympia field Chicago Where the rich and mighty lived, They had a daughter.

After a while the wife who was a low earner got bored and filed for divorce. She was awarded the house under the pretext that she was used to such luxury and she brought her fellow Akata boyfriend into the house who was a barber and the man had to go rent a condo or live with friends while still paying mortagage on his big house

The court told him he can only visit his daughter like twice a month. The house is in a gated community

Sometime after calling the wife that he is coming to visit, He would be outside the gate community for 1 hour waiting before the new boyfriend would drive his range rover with his wife to bring the girl to him.

At a time the man said he felt like killing both of them and going to jail, it was his mom who restrained him and told him that if theres life, theres hope.

Because of his earning as a big Investment banker in Chicago, He was paying almost 10k in Child supprt which the wife and new Boyfriend would take vacations on.

It was the mans boss a white man who was privy to all of these that told him to resign instead of paying all you work for to the woman and her boyfriend to live on

He resigned, relocated to another state got a lesser job.

This is a man who strived hard in his twenties and 30's to live his dream, While his mates were partying he was busting his asss at the best Business school in the World - UChicago just to live his dream and retire rich. Now he is in his mid 40's and lost everything just because he married.

Sagamite:

If I was the one, this one is easy.

I would get an investment banking job in Nigeria, Amsterdam, Paris, Hong Kong, London, Dubai or whatever. Many of my contemporaries in IB or from Booth should be able to hook me up.

Leave the country, stop paying the mortgage. Let the house be repossessed, the ex would get the change left over when the bank take their principal and interest. I would not send any money, let her use that significant change to raise the child.

I would not see the child until the child is 18. I would only try and keep in touch with the child on the net when they are of age.

Fact: Even if a parent abandons the child, the child will always want to know the parent and would seek the parent. They will seek the love and will be willing to forget anything just to get to know who they came from.

She WOULD come and look for me, and I will accept her with open arms and reconnect, explaining the dilemma. By that time I would have the money I have been putting aside for her college fund ready. Maybe even money to send her to an academic boot camp. Believe me, it is the mother that would lose.

When you are stewpid (not signing a pre-nup after being an IBer from Booth), you have to know when you have lost. Just limit your loss instead of keep losing.

Sagamite:

If I was the one, this one is easy.

I would get an investment banking job in Nigeria, Amsterdam, Paris, Hong Kong, London, Dubai or whatever. Many of my contemporaries in IB or from Booth should be able to hook me up.

Leave the country, stop paying the mortgage. Let the house be repossessed, the ex would get the change left over when the bank take their principal and interest. I would not send any money, let her use that significant change to raise the child.

I would not see the child until the child is 18. I would only try and keep in touch with the child on the net when they are of age.

Fact: Even if a parent abandons the child, the child will always want to know the parent and would seek the parent. They will seek the love and will be willing to forget anything just to get to know who they came from.

She WOULD come and look for me, and I will accept her with open arms and reconnect, explaining the dilemma. By that time I would have the money I have been putting aside for her college fund ready. Maybe even money to send her to an academic boot camp. Believe me, it is the mother that would lose.

When you are stewpid (not signing a pre-nup after being an IBer from Booth), you have to know when you have lost. Just limit your loss instead of keep losing.

tlops:

Only if you don't plan to enter the states again will this your "Agidi" work. The man should simply have refused to divorce.

Claus:

This is where the argument starts getting mixed up. Denying her the benefit of half his assets is not the same as saying he should pay her the same alimony as a poor man!

queensmith:

your the one that started it, the payments still have to be relative- a man being kicked out of his home and paying double mortgages is paying more than a millionaire thats just trying to be smart.
sha sha- 2 million, 20million 2 very different amounts, it's not right. He should pay up immediately.

Sagamite:
Can you refuse to divorce if the other person wants to?

dare2think:

"Many chicks wanna put Jigga fist in cuffs Divorce him and split his bucks Just because you got good head, I'ma break bread so you can be livin it up? poo I, parts with nothin, y'all be frontin Me give my heart to a woman? Not for nothin, never happen I'll be forever mackin"

Imagine a millionaire saying this, what more an average middle-class man.

If you dont sign a pre-nupt, at least hide your money somewhere.

pro01:

Wow, choice words mehn. Been a while I listened to Big Pimpin'. . .that was back when Jigga was Jigga. . .before he sold out and gave his heart to Beyonce (or did he?). Anyways, I'ma download that track right away.

rhymz:

Pro, Jigga is still Jigga, homeboy still has his street smarts intact. He made Bey sign a prenup whose benefits are all conditional and little far-fetched for a self-obsessed star like Bey. For a millionaire of Jigga's standing, the prenup does not give Bey up to $30million in the worst case scenerio of their divorce. The guy smart die jare. And you wonder why rappers in particular call these females Biatches?? And rarely stay trapped in any marriage no matter how pretty you are. They will rather make a babymomma outta your a$s. . .lol
Go and tell sombori like fiddy to split his buck in half for you na. . .lol

Claus:

^^^
There's no greater indictment of the divorce laws than the fact that a woman worth $100m can still claim a substantial amount from an ex-husband over and above his share of child rearing costs and compensation for her lost earnings.

Sagamite:

I am sorry, this is a DAFT prenup:

"The prenup calls for Jay Z to pay Beyonce $10 million if the marriage ends after 2 years, and $1 million a year for each further year she remains in the marriage, up to 15 years ,
He promised to pay her an additional $5 million for each child she bears for him - for her loss of income during the pregnancy and child rearing years ,

And Beyonce would be granted access to their private jet and fleet of cars, which includes a $1 million 1959 Rolls-Royce convertible."

$10m for what? $25m max for what? Why does she not pay him that for him marrying her? She has more than enough money to live large on, I would not pay her a DIME! We leave with what we came with and earned. Giving money in prenup is only for a situation where I feel the ex-wife might be impoverished after divorce or be an extended housewife hence not making money, not when she is working and making her own significant sums. This prenup just shows he is saying he is taking a fault for any marriage failure before the marriage even begins.

$5m for the child is shaky to me. I understand the loss of income but I am not too sure about child rearing. If he is contributing lets say $2m a year per child to child rearing, what is her contribution to the child rearing? Abi no be dem pikins? Surely they are not his alone, that would be confirmed when the courts award her custody. The only thing there is that maybe she makes more than $5m a year.

rhymz:

well, you have a point but it appears in this case it is Jay that just wants to do it, perhaps to show his love for Bey but in a way that does not leave him like a ravaged kitten.

TV01:

Marriage as a proposition has changed significantly in recent times. One of the downsides for the “wealthier party” – typically men – can be serious financial loss, possibly leading to severe hardship for all but the quite well off.

With the introduction of “no-fault” divorce and laws designed to “ensure the best interest of any children” – which invariably benefits the “primary carer”, a role for the most part presumptuously awarded to the mother – men are also in danger of losing out on a significant role in raising their children.

Many on this thread are looking at “Nups” as the solution, be that pre or post. And doubtless, with  a little creativity, I’m sure we could well see nups evolve into a fully-fledged (and tradable?) financial instrument. The primary driver behind this approach being to limit the financial downside of divorce.

I beg to differ. And for a whole host of reasons;

1. Even if nups were perfectly legal and enforceable, they’d still have to be agreed by the parties. What woman in this day and age would not insist on minimum and potentially scaled (if Daddy hits pay dirt at any point) financial payments for “her kids”. Is anyone left in doubt as to the position the “law” will take on this?
2. It doesn’t speak to a potentially more costly issue – emotionally and financially – of access to the children
3. It doesn’t address or challenge the true motivation behind some of the weird political and legal maneuvering. In fact, it plays right into it’s hands per 1. above
4. An even greater reason – and without touching on 4. above - it doesn’t address root issues, such as the nature, benefits and understanding of marriage. Rebalancing and reclaiming it for the key, most basic and ultimately most important societal building block it is. The family.
5.  Marriage is not a business transaction

Let me start form point 5. First. Many of the discussions here typically focus on rich (celeb) type situations, which to be honest are far from the typical “garden variety” divorce.

As has been rightly pointed out, how many – if any – of the discussants here are any better than comfortably well off? And even if you are, a messy and acrimonious divorce can make road-kill of even the most comfortable lifestyle. Not to mention the physical and emotional costs. Anyone reading will have heard of the “broken men” and the “estranged and wayward children”. Very  real possibilities for your ordinary Joe in the event of divorce.

To treat marriage or any part of it “transactionally” is to divorce - excuse the pun - it from its true worth and meaning and strip it of much of it’s value.

In fact, it would be more honest to treat it as a “transaction” end-to-end, which to be honest is what a lot of people do anyway. Merely adding some spiritual and social content at the front-end, then using the courts to reap the profit at close.

Honest end-game here would be a situation (and if I recall there has been one, involving a rich celeb no less) where having kids and providing for their upkeep were based on a pre-agreed legal contract. Is that really what we want?


More later if time permits, but I welcome comment on the little I’ve posted.

Best
TV