Robyn's divorce: Most expensive celeb split ever?

[noamnety]

Yesterday, the news broke that Robyn Gibson had filed for divorce from her husband of 28 years citing "irreconcilable differences."

Today, details are starting to trickle forth. Robyn's husband responded to her divorce petition, maintaining that they couple have actually been separated since August 26, 2006, which is just about one month after his much-publicized July 28, 2006 arrest for drunk driving.

And as for the fate of her estimated $1 billion fortune?

(snip)

It is widely believed that the couple, who have seven children, do not have a prenuptial agreement. Because they reside in California which has community property laws that require marital assets acquired throughout the marriage to be split equally, Mel Gibson is most likely entitled to half of the family's fortune.

Do you think Robyn's husband deserves half of her considerable assets? More? Less?

http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/popcast/18580/melsdivorcemostexpensivecelebsplitever/

:evilgrin:

(thanks to OmmmSweetOmmm for raising the issue of wording)

[MADem]

1. They oughta pay that woman a pain and suffering bonus! nt

[noamnety]

4. Probably so.

But if they are looking to keep any level of privacy in the divorce, I doubt that will be raised. Given that they have children, I suspect not dredging that up publicly for their sake if nothing else is more important to her than the money.

[bettyellen]

2. 7 kids? she should get 3/4 of everything. seriously, ouch.

[noamnety]

3. So she should have to give 1/4 of her assets to her (ex) spouse.

(adjusting wording here, that's all.)

[iverglas]

5. here's my question:

Why do I care?

I had no idea she was a billionnaire. I wouldn't have expected a woman of independent means to hook up with a Mel Gibson and participate in such an ickily patriarchal model of family.

Billionnaires aren't commonly developmentally disabled, at least not those in charge of their own fortunes. She chose to enter into a relationship that is governed by a set of laws, and she chose the laws by which it would be governed: the community property laws of California.

I don't know whether those laws take child custody/care into account in dividing community assets. I would have thought that if they provide for equal division of assets, there would be a 50/50 split, with the non-custodial partner then having to contribute to the support of the children on the usual means-based basis. And I don't know why this case would/should be any different just because it was the woman who brought the majority of the assets to the marriage.

Can billionnaires be exploited? Sure. Do they need the public to protect them from exploitation? Maybe, in some cases. (If only in the public interest: e.g. from whatsisname the Ponzi scheme guy). Is this such a case? Someone would have to persuade me.

[Warpy]

6. You're right about the law and that's how it will be handled

However, it's clear why an heiress would submit to an icky patriarchal marriage.

Consider a life of being pampered, fawned over, courted, and having your slightest whim not only met but anticipated, satisfied before you'd formed the thought.

What would you want most in life? What would you be missing?

It only looks nuts to the rest of us who suffer humiliation, rage, frustration, and despair as the conditions of our own class.

[iverglas]

7. okay, I get it

I should click instead of assuming that someone who purports to have quoted has actually quoted.

http://www.comcast.net/entertainment/popcast/18580/melsdivorcemostexpensivecelebsplitever

And as for the fate of Mel's estimated $1 billion fortune?

... It is widely believed that the couple, who have seven children, do not have a prenuptial agreement. Because they reside in California which has community property laws that require marital assets acquired throughout the marriage to be split equally, Robyn Gibson is most likely entitled to half of the family's fortune.

I suspect we were supposed to be tricked into saying NO!!! She should not have to pay up!!!

And then maybe all would be revealed, and we'd all look foolish, because it's really Mel who's going to have to pay up.

Well, it didn't work on me, anyhow.

I supported this kind of law circa 1973 when I was in law school and observed the horrendously unfair way women were treated when it came to family assets (the famous Canadian case was a farm on which the wife had laboured at least equally with the husband, but in which she had no claim on divorce because it was in his name).

I don't support this kind of law in principle, I support it only as a way of addressing potential exploitation, given that women are in the weaker economic position in a majority of cases, and for other reasons as well are vulnerable to being economically screwed within marriage and upon marriage breakdown.

In an ideal world, people would be responsible for making their own economic arrangements within marriage. One reason I'm not married -- what's mine is mine, period. If he wants what's his to be his, he's welcome to acquire something to call his own.


typo fixed

[noamnety]

8. This wasn't at all to try to trick you into answering the question

I don't care about the answer to the question that the article poses.

What I'm pointing out here is that they are in a state with JOINT marital assets, yet the article phrases the entire story as if it's HIS money, and it's going to be expensive to HIM to pay her off.


This thread grew out of this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5482772#5488481

Apologies for the confusion, I really wasn't trying to trick anyone - I did the rewrite, and linked to the original hoping that it would cause people to question the gendered assumptions in the original.

[iverglas]

9. aha

Don't apologize because I was too lazy to click. ;)

I do indeed take your point - "his" assets.

Mind you, I think they are his assets. I've never quite figured out why being the "wife of" a billionnaire entitles one to half a billion for all one's hard wifely work, while being the wife of a pauper entitles one to nothing for probably harder work. Robyn Gibson really didn't earn that money. And Mel Gibson could have hired people to do whatever she did, apart from the sex part (I mean, he could have, but that isn't generally included in the value of services performed by spouses), for a damned sight less than half his fortune.

Not at all like the Canadian farmer situation, where she actually did contribute equally to the support of the household and the value of the assets, by working on the farm.

Similarly, if Robyn Gibson really had been the billionnaire, I'd have said they are "her" assets. The law just requires that they be treated like "their" assets.

Ah, I do look forward that that Utopian day when women will have equal economic opportunities ... and not be socialized into declining to seize those opportunities and make their own fortunes ... when men actually do participate equally in child-rearing and domestic chores, and women aren't collectively disadvantaged by "choices" that limit their economic oppotunities and success ... and, of course, when there are no billionnaires!

[rd_kent]

13. Well put.

I agree

[rd_kent]

10. Who cares?

She is going to get more than she will ever NEED. This obsession with celebrities has got to stop! They are rich. Regardless of how the assests get split, they will have PLENTY of money.

Lets start worrying about our own problems, then, when those are all taken care of, we can concern ourselves with the celebrities.

[Scout]

11. obviously YOU care enough to post, to tell everyone else what they should care about...

:eyes:

[rd_kent]

12. Yup

Just trying to keep everyone focused on the IMPORTANT issues. Is this celebrity divorce important, in the grand scheme of things? Could the effort Americans put into celebrity culture be put to better use? Does concerning ones self with celebrity culture advance womens rights?

If this is important, well, I take it all back.

[Scout]

14. some people can care about more than one thing....

and other people care about important stuff, but use celebrity stuff for a BREAK

we can't wear sackcloth and ashes and flagellate ourselves all the time y'know.

jesus h christ on a fucking pogo stick

[rd_kent]

15. Did I hit a nerve?

And the super-popularity of celeb culture/obsession is not being used as a "break".

[Scout]

16. nope, no nerve hits

i just think it's really fucking funny when people post "who cares" posts to threads to show other people how much they don't care, and how superior they think they are to other people.

some people do use it as a break ... if you don't like it, tough shit, why do you care?

[rd_kent]

17. Just what we need more of....

More celeb obsession and "if you don't like it, tough shit, why do you care?" attitude.

[Scout]

18. awwww, poor baby. did i pee in your wheaties?

"celeb obsession" right.

you've got more posts in this thread than anyone else....

:rofl:

[rd_kent]

19. If anyone got their wheaties peed on, its you

But I suppose you were too busy watching ET, or TMZ to notice.

I guess youre just looking for a fight, not a serious conversation about the obsession with celebs and their lives that you and many Americans seems to have.
I'm done with you. You are dismissed. Good Day.

[IDFbunny]

20. That'll teach him to marry.

Successful people should cohabitate rather than marry. Divorce is too costly.