taking half after a divorce?

Question

So heres my question... Im reading yahoo news and Michael Jordan and his wife is getting a divorce. She is about to get 100 million or something like that from him just cuz she was married to him.... Is that fair? Now I know some women will say yes because she had to put up with mens bs but... this is MJ we're talking about. He's rich and always was rich. She didn't have to lift a finger. All his money came from HIS talent, HIM playing basketball, HIM making endorsments, HIS name. I would understand if she had something to do with that, but she has absolutely NOTHING to do with that... wheres the fairness in that???

Answer 1

I heard they were divorced quite a while ago, but here's the thing. He is under contract endoresements for several products, and usually people that have been married as long as they have are allowed to split the money in half.
They probably had an agreement that she would raise their children and that is no small task. Especially with a father rarely around.
But you missed the remark that MJ said about the split and the money:
"She is worth every penny of it". He's a class act !

Answer 2

You have to look at the situation in it's context. It may seem like a lot of money, half of the estate but understand this:

a. If Jordan had to be a full time parent to all of his kids he had with her could he have been as successful? Since she raised all those kids and took care of him, she sacrificed earnings so he could earn for them both...Now she gets her cut.

b. When you are joined in marriage you become more of an organization with legal implications.

c. She already has suffered through adultery which does most men in on marriage settlements anyways.

d. Jordan will make up that one hundred million in about six years or better so what's the harm anyways?

e. If Jordan were a woman who had earned all that money, trust me he'd still have to give it up...Case in point, Oprah never have or will get married.

f. She should however have absolutely no earnings once they settle, as in future endorsements or contracts that he may obtain.

i. Lastly, he's bound to get stuck with the bill until those kids are eighteen.

Answer 3

the courts totally understand that, but more than likely, children are involved in this divorce. No i don't think this is fair, but in essence, it does'nt boil down to what's fair, it's a matter of making sure the children are taken of, and because the majority of divorces end with the woman having custody of the children, the judge is going to sympathize with the woman in the case because they believe that the man can support himself and the woman can't, hence the reason that most women win the divorce cases

Answer 4

the fairness is in the fact that he has enough to share for starters. another thing is that being married to him she has become accostomed to that way of life and why should she be put in poverty because they are divorcing when there isn't a need to. this isn't an issue over who made what. this is an end to a life they shared together through ups and downs, joys and tragedies, wins and losses and though she may not have been the one shooting the baskets she was there and cheered him on, missed him when he was gone, hurt when he felt pain

Answer 5

Fair is taking what you came into the relationship with, unless, of course, there are children involved. But, as far as material items go, the right thing to do is to take whatever is yours and what you can prove was a gift!!!

Answer 6

Well I don't know about jordan, but i'm married to a girl who's got tons of money. And I know if we ever get divorced i'm takin all her money! Naw i'm just kidding....Or I'm I?

Answer 7

I agree with you . She should'nt get half she got get what she contributed which would be zero.