Wife divorcing ex-CEO: $43 million not enough

[OneTimeSBX]

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

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.

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.... (note: the postnuptial is for $43 million, not bad huh?)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29760888/?gt1=43001

is it okay if i say i really hate this lady? a former investment banker cant stretch $43 mil? in this economy where people are losing their homes and jobs she cant live off $53k a week? i am too through...

[IlovemyAKA]

I must agree with you. Why does she need to spend $1000 a week on skin and hair treatments and $4500 EACH WEEK on clothes?!

[ForeverRoses]

wow.

[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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by 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.

Here's the local take on the story: http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc...,1478969.story

Just as a threshold issue, as someone who clerks for a CT law office, I can tell you that CT has some funky evidentiary rules, so there may be quite a few differences with OK. I don't do any family law work, though, and your assessment of the issues seems completely reasonable. I also agree that it's important to read the story with an eye towards her lifestyle while married to David. It might seem crazy to us, but that doesn't mean it's unfair.

That said...valuation issues aside, I wouldn't be surprised if the estate is that large. UTC is a huge company, encompassing Pratt & Whitney, Sikorsky, and a bunch of other organizations. He got something like $60 million his last year at UTC.

It should be an interesting story to follow - both sides have solid lawyers.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It should be an interesting story to follow - both sides have solid lawyers.

No doubt.

We handle some 'high profile' divorces here in Oklahoma, but this is Oklahoma, so we don't have all that much in the way of huge estates. The ones which we do have and those which we've represented are generally settled through mediation or something to that effect.

In this case, if husband's offer is $43 million, he's being unreasonable, IMHO. I wouldn't even dream of recommending my client go to mediation if that was the offer. I'd be shocked if she didn't do a lot better in court.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

No doubt.

We handle some 'high profile' divorces here in Oklahoma, but this is Oklahoma, so we don't have all that much in the way of huge estates. The ones which we do have and those which we've represented are generally settled through mediation or something to that effect.

In this case, if husband's offer is $43 million, he's being unreasonable, IMHO. I wouldn't even dream of recommending my client go to mediation if that was the offer. I'd be shocked if she didn't do a lot better in court.

This is only an assumption on my part, but I would guess that this is one of the larger estates to be handled in the Greater Hartford area. I would guess that most estates this size are involving people who live closer to NYC (Greenwich, Darien, New Canaan, etc.). Even in the wealthier areas of Hartford county, like West Hartford, Farmington and Avon, for the most part you're not seeing people with wealth at David's level.

[DaemonSeid]

How do you say 'recession' in Swedish?

[Kevin]

Ask him.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Ask him.

That is wrong no matter what the language!!

LOL

[IlovemyAKA]

She initially agreed to it. Is this now moot?

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

[Kevin]

I can only answer for what it'd be here in Oklahoma. Which means in many states, even maybe Oklahoma , the following will be wrong:

Postnuptial agreements are unenforceable unless they are in contemplation of divorce, i.e., an impending divorce. If she agreed to this amount within the context of settlement negotiations of the marital estate, then the deal is enforceable as a contract and can be defended with the sorts of affirmative defenses which would apply in contract law, e.g., fraud, duress, mistake, etc.

What the husband would do (at least in Oklahoma courts, at least I if was working on his case) is file a Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement. At that point, if you can prove that you had a deal, i.e., a signed settlement agreement, then you've got a decently solid case and here he could force her to accept a Decree of Dissolution of Marriage which specified the $43 million.

On the other hand, if this is just something they did as a matter of estate planning or something to that effect, it'll likely be held to have no effect. At any rate, again, the article is pretty weak on the crucial details, at least from a legal perspective.

This is not legal advice, do not read this and rely on it. If you are trying to skip out of a settlement for a $43 million portion of a marital estate, I recommend you contact a lawyer post haste.

[texas*princess]

Geez.

[texas*princess]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I can only answer for what it'd be here in Oklahoma. Which means in many states, even maybe Oklahoma , the following will be wrong:

Postnuptial agreements are unenforceable unless they are in contemplation of divorce, i.e., an impending divorce. If she agreed to this amount within the context of settlement negotiations of the marital estate, then the deal is enforceable as a contract and can be defended with the sorts of affirmative defenses which would apply in contract law, e.g., fraud, duress, mistake, etc.


[/I]

The article said that they married in 2002, and by 2004, the marriage was already in trouble. In Oct 2005, they signed the post-nuptial agreement.

If "court papers show" that the marriage was already in trouble prior to the agreement and divorce, would that possibly be enforceable?