You have a good point about the lawyers, Stu. They're usually the only winners in these situations.

Even if she has helped. Why on earth should she get £320million+++ ? Sure, she's helped with the kids and other things, but how, please tell me- does that mean she gets half of everything that he has earnt? He has earnt the money, and yes, he should give her some to live off of, but at the end of the day it really shouldn't be that much. She has lived off of him for the majority of their marriage and he has provided for her very well financially. I think he should give her enough to -
*make a new start
*live for a while
* plus a bit extra for niceness' sake
Lets say around £40million max.
That's more than enough for someone to get when it isn't really theirs. Why does she need more?

Quote:

---

Sure, she's helped with the kids

---

Priceless.

I understand your points, girl-action, although I can't agree with most of them. I do agree that 40 million pounds is more than enough to live on, and that she doesn't need more. (More on that below)

I can't say I agree though that "she lived off him for the majority of their marriage" or that "it isn't really theirs" (hers). Running a household of nine people is a tough task, and who's to say that being a homemaker/mother isn't just as bit as important as the person who brings home the bacon? It's my opinion that being a mother, bringing up seven children to be decent honourable human-beings is actually more important than going out to work and bringing home a wage, even if that person happens to be a famous 'movie-star'.

As to the remark that "it (the money) isn't really hers"... why not? Marriage is more than just a legal state, it is a partnership. Both people put into the pot, both take out. I'm sure their traditional Catholic marriage vows included "for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health". This couple was lucky - they ended up rich, financially speaking. They both put in their skills; his as a breadwinner, hers as a mother and keeper of the household. Why consider this case any differently than that of a more average couple? For simplicity's sake let's assume the man goes to work and the woman stays at home. The man goes off to work at the factory or office, and she stays at home with two or three kids. For whatever reasons, they decide to split after 28 years. You don't think the woman is entitled to half the assets of their home, car, a few toys, and $50,000 in the bank? If so, where do you draw the line, and why? They both put into the partnership, now it is dissolving, they should both take out equally, yes? I fail to see how the amount of the assets has anything to do with it.

Back to this specific case: While I agree that "40 million pounds is more than enough for someone" I have to look at the bigger picture, which is equality for both the man and the woman, and say that she deserves and has earned half of their assets. It's only fair. Her contribution to the marriage was no less than his.

And, although none of us know for a fact (we don't live with them), it does seem that she kept her vows of marriage to God and him better than he did to her, and that she didn't cause him the heartaches that he must have caused her.

I can't see any reason why she should not walk away with half of their assets, after twenty eight years of marriage.

Girl-action, we both agree that 40 million pounds is more than enough for any one person to need, so may I ask you why you think it's unfair for Mr. Gibson to end up with half a billion dollars?

edited to change my monetary symbols from dollars to pounds

You know, if you were to calculate all the stuff the woman did as a manager of that estate, I'm sure you'd come up with an enormous amount of money.

then, I'm absolutely certain that if he'd had all those children with various women like Jagger or someone similar does, that he'd owe lots more than he does now.

He should just give her whatever. If he drags out the process by not, he will wind up spending the difference in legal fees, anyhow.

I mean, it's Mel Gibson! A million to us is like $20 for him.

Edit for typo

When you are talking huge sums as in this case then really it makes little difference to him anyway, he will still be able to 'manage' on what is left, it isn't going to alter his lifestyle one iota, and in the future presumably he will earn more so won't be on the bread line.

When I was married my husband considered any earned income to be joint income regardless of who was paid the money. As I gave up paid employment within a few months of marrying him this meant that he gave me half his salary, we then split household expenses. He considered running the home and raising children was as important as his work.

Quote:

---

Exactly. I think we also need to question the fairness of an actor, producer, etc. "earning" half a billion dollars when people who do really important things like teaching, nursing, mothering, etc. make so little. The relative value of anyone's labor in this society seems to be completely unrelated to its actual value to society. So who are we to say that she "deserves" less for her labor? ...

---

This is well put and actually strikes close to the heart of what's wrong, here. We have such an erroneous idea of what counts as work and what doesn't in this modern society. If you're a good mother [especially to seven children] and deal with the caprices of a husband who's clearly out of control and something of a narcissist, to boot- your work has indeed been cut out for you.
Her husband, on the other hand, is merely getting paid to do what he loves and is naturally inclined to do -look good on camera, be creative and boss people around in his director producer capacities. As an artist myself, I can admit to feeling a bit like 'getting away with something' when I'm paid good money for painting a large mural. Sure,it takes long hours and makes my shoulders hurt -but in my free time [when not arguing with teenagers] it's what I'd be doing anyway. So I know what it's like to be paid for something I do as readily as breathing.
This mindset also spills over into the area of sports and music, but that's for another thread altogether. As Mark Twain said- "Work consists of those things a body is obliged to do. Play is made up of things a body is not obliged to do."