FrustratedUser
Lifer
- Aug 16, 2001
- 22,505
- 4
- 81
I really wouldn't want to see his messy overly hairy bits anyway.Originally posted by: jimbob200521
"Britney, 24, fears the raunchy footage will destroy her wholesome image unless she caves in to his demands for a £16million payoff and custody of their children Sean Preston, one, and Jayden James, eight weeks."
Link to Story
Originally posted by: judasmachine
Originally posted by: mugs
"They did nothing all day but have sex?and play the odd game of chess. "
I don't believe that for a second.
I'm sure it's the 'chess' where you have to say, "king me."
"They did nothing all day but have sex?and play the odd game of chest. ".
Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Britney Spears may be the dumbest thing on planet earth, but as said above, she has a great rack, so I'd watch it...
:evil:
Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
oh man he played the fvck out of her. man oh man. im sure it wasn't too difficult to the pull the wool over her eyes she isnt the smartest. I say good for him. Finally a man is set to make some financial gain during a divorce.
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: DonVito
This is incorrect. Judges do indeed throw out some pre-nups, but there are many ironclad ones that have been tested in court and survived. I have to assume she would have used a stellar attorney, and that her pre-nup is probably as good as they get.
Also, as to your first point, no, he would not be entitled to half of her "estate" (this term really only applies after she's dead). California is a community-property state, and, absent a pre-nup, he would be entitled to half of the money she made during their marriage. Since, as I recall, she really hasn't toured or released new music during their marriage, this would likely be a fairly small percentage of her net worth.
Out of curiousity, for what reasons are pre-nups normally tossed out?
Originally posted by: Balt
Why would he even pretend to want the kids? Hoping to bargain for more money if he gives up custody?
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: mugs
Originally posted by: DonVito
This is incorrect. Judges do indeed throw out some pre-nups, but there are many ironclad ones that have been tested in court and survived. I have to assume she would have used a stellar attorney, and that her pre-nup is probably as good as they get.
Also, as to your first point, no, he would not be entitled to half of her "estate" (this term really only applies after she's dead). California is a community-property state, and, absent a pre-nup, he would be entitled to half of the money she made during their marriage. Since, as I recall, she really hasn't toured or released new music during their marriage, this would likely be a fairly small percentage of her net worth.
Out of curiousity, for what reasons are pre-nups normally tossed out?
Typically the spouse (usually the wife, here the husband) claims he or she was coerced or subjected to undue influence, or didn't understand what he or she was signing. Some attorneys actually videotape the signing and ask the wife a series of questions on tape to protect against this. I have to imagine she would have had some killer lawyers, and wouldn't be at all surprised if he'd signed it on videotape.
Originally posted by: mpitts
Originally posted by: timosyy
Eh.. They were married. Married people have sex. A lot.
I'm just guessing that you are not currently and have never been married..![]()
Originally posted by: dennilfloss
Britney and Federline playing chess?:Q
*Head explodes!*
He is only entitled to half of what she made while they were married. Also, understand that it's much harder to throw out a pre-nup when the marriage lasted such a short time. Less has changed since they got married than in a marriage where, say, someone suddenly became a multi-millionaire when they were making $30k/yr before.Originally posted by: BoberFett
Why should he have to extort money from her? Shouldn't he be entitled to half her estate, plus alimony?
Edit: I should add, I'm pretty sure judges throw out pre-nups all the time. There's no such thing as an iron clad pre-nup.
He wants the kids because that entitles him to alimony payments... he gets none now.Originally posted by: Balt
Assuming this source is reliable and not just a tabloid:
Why would he even pretend to want the kids? Hoping to bargain for more money if he gives up custody?
Originally posted by: wicka
I can't believe she is pondering giving up her kids to maintain a non-existent image.
Originally posted by: DonVito
Originally posted by: wicka
I can't believe she is pondering giving up her kids to maintain a non-existent image.
Who says she is doing any such thing? I'd rather have my children raised by wolves than Kevin Federline.
Driving lessons begin earlier with Britney. I'm picking her.Originally posted by: Leros
Let's pretend he cares about the kids...
Who would be a better parent KFed or Britney? I'm voting KFed.
