[Kevin]

Since Connecticut isn't a community property state [meaning we automatically split everything 50/50], I'm guessing assets are divided equitably [i.e., the judge thinks it's fair]. Where that occurs, 50/50 is still a rebuttable presumption [meaning that the Court generally starts with 50/50, but generally has pretty broad discretion to do whatever it wants to do].

Here, we have a marital estate worth $329 million. A trial judge will generally deviate from a 50/50 distribution if it is equitable to do so. The story doesn't do a great job of illustrating what really happened here, but as far as I can tell, it's not as if the wife stayed at home eating bon bons. She quit her job as an investment banker to be with the husband and apparently had to do quite a bit to entertain guests and keep a large home for her husband and for the business.

I'm guessing that the $43 million is in the story because it was the husband's final settlement offer. If the estate is truly worth $329 million (and I'm sure the valuation experts on both sides will differ on that number), then I'd turn down $43 million as well. That's actually a pretty bad offer. I'm also guessing the $53K/week was the offered alimony aspect of the settlement. I'm also guessing that the $1K/week for hair was drawn from a temporary order exhibit proffered by the wife's counsel -- and those numbers are completely in-line with what high net worth folks spend for that sort of thing. I'm sure if my estate was in the $300 million range, I'd get expensive haircuts as well.

It's pretty clear that the author of this article doesn't really know what the issues are here or that they're just trying to sensationalize the issues for public consumption (I know.. MSNBC, big shock there, right?).

ETA: Yes, I'm assuming that for a lot of that, Connecticut procedure and law is substantially similar to what we have in Oklahoma... and that's not always a safe assumption.