We are, of course, amazed that our readers occasionally disagree with our brilliant and witty essays. In fact, sometimes quite a few readers think that The Outrage editors are wrong, misanthropic, idiotic, selfish, deluded, or all of the above.

Mother Outrage always told us that even the dull and the ignorant should have their say, so we've allowed space below for those dissenting opinions (and for shameless flattery).

Read the 1st set of comments about this Outrage!

I,m outraged at the women who get to stay home , myself being a working mom housewife for 36 years with a pension and survivor benefits , who was the sole provider for many years so he could get a degree and a better job, I want a fair and equitable settlement, not be punished so the other woman who committed adultry agains't her husband and stayed home can reap the benefits of my hard work.

my ex wife sexual molelested my so -5 counts indicted by grand jury--still got costody of two younger girls

As I read these comments, I see a familiar pattern: people using an issue like this to project their own pain. I agree with the logical conclusion drawn by some, that we have no idea what these people did and did not do. However, this goes both ways. They could both have been jerks, using and abusing each other and everyone else. Sometimes victims are abusers too. She could have been cold, but that doesn't justify philandering. He could have got a divorce and then found whomever he wanted. She might have still sued, but people with money have ways of hiding it and in situations like this and they often do. She might have been a good wife/ homemaker or organizer, or maybe a spoiled drain on his assests. There's no telling. They'll each say opposites. He could have been abusive or even just cold and unappreciative, which is its own form of abuse when endured endlessly. One thing that troubles me is that we are avoiding an important issue: the traditional roles of women are entirely devalued. Caregivers, it is true, make much less than the billions at stake here, but should they? Should uncaring cutthroats be valued more than those who care for children and homes? It is precisely because we devalue this as a society that these things are at issue at all. In a fair system, families would decide who works for money and who works for other benefits and then the assests would be devided each week as they would be in a company. The sales team in any company has to bring in the money but honey, the production team still gets paid or there's nothing to sell. A good CEO knows how to keep loyal, hardworking employees happily on board and the whole organization running smoothly. Unfortunately, we don't often take these understandings of power issues into our families. No one would need divorce settlements if homemaking and organizing, childcare and care of the elderly were positions that were valued and even paid for. Maybe they can't be, and it even offends a part of me to think of these gifts as being marketable, but until we at least value them in an abstract way, these disagreements continue. When I divorced, my concern was for everyone involved. I wanted to be able to become self-sufficient, to not interupt my ex husbands chances for future success and for the children to feel the least amount of effect possible. With this perspective in mind, together we crafted an agreement that suited us all with equal value. We couldn't work together in a marriage and there were some bitter and resentful feelings, but as adults, we knew that by looking out for the well being of everyone involved, we would help ourselves as well. Why do so few people see this obvious truth?

why don't you talk to your ex husband or ex wife about how you feel.

I wants to marriage who is divorse My name is Farrukh and 5-9" tall. If interested email me.

dear mr. Carl Cleagu; although your mother may have been a prostitute, not all woman are.

You completely overlook the contribution that long-term wives make to their husband's careers. I saw this very much in my parents' marriage (which is still going strong.)My dad relied on my mom for so many things, all of which ended up enhancing his career. Her "job" was making sure his children were safe, fed, transported and happy. I am reasonably sure that she actually worked harder than he did, but the result was a very nice income for both of them. My father always said if they ever divorced that half was the MINIMUM she was entitled to.

I just wanted to reply to Carl Cleagu's e-mail to u guys. Scroll up, you'll see it. It's like the 10th one from the top. Anyway Mr. Cleagu you obviously will never have to worry about getting a divorce, because no woman would ever want to marry you with an attitdue like that. And further more you;d be surprised how many men have there price to, I can get any man I want if I were willing to sleep with them all. Ok, one more thing: I only talk to men because they have a penis, hey I mean it's almost as good as having a brain. Later.

dIVORCE SETTLEMENTS SUCK. iF THE WOMAN HAS THE BUCKS, THE COURT SIDE WITH HER. IF THE GUY HAS THE BUCKS, HE LOSES GENERALLY. PRENUPTS DO WORK, IF THEY ARE PREPARED CORRECLY. MAYBE THEY NEED TO BE MANDATORY FOR ALL.

For every complex problem someone has a simple solution that won't work. Virtually every situation should be judged on it's own merits and as several have pointed out, we don't really know the details in this one. In my case, I am fairly well off financially but if it weren't for my wife's influence I would still have to get a co-signer for my lunch as I did when I met her. On the other hand I know of some men whose wives keep them broke all the time.

I think the whole concept of marrage is outdated. At one point in time it served as a bond for the guys who work to support the women who didn't. Now it is just a way to get yourself screwed out of house and home. And just as stated above, divorce would fall into that category also since it is a product of marrage. If she helped make that 6 billion made, then she should get half. But if she didn't, no. Child rearing is a job, but since you are supposed to be raising that child for his own sake and not for yours (Here's how it goes, "I want children." Let's try this approach, "I want another person to go through everything I went through, only harder because I have made it that much harder to do anything because I vote for people that make stricter laws, and I want them around so THEY can enjoy it.") She should get enough to survive on. I'm thinking something around 25 grand from that 6 billion. since she is 74(?) she should be able to make that last since she probably isn't caring for shildren. and women that are still don't get half, they get enough to feed and clothe the child (about 2/3 of food & clothing and education) and the rest is up to whomever has the child with them, lodging, the other 1/3 of the child's expenses, and their own food and clothing. If that doesn't sound good enough, then don't get married, don't have kids (please don't have kids, optimal earth capacity is 2 billion, we should be at 12 billion by 2050.). ok, i am losing my train of thought (i am at work) and am starting to ramble. =8^) I don't hate women, I have a girlfriend who I plan on staying with forever, I just don't feel that paper is the best way to show that.

Re: Redstone divorce... IMHO, this kind of "unmarital" difficulty has a lot more to do with power (money=power) than it does with relationships. kh

Lewis Grizzard:

"I don't think I'll get married again. I'll just find a woman I don't like and give her a house."

http://www.michaelmbates.com

Having firsthand experience of divorce procedures and injustices, the following points NEED to be considered by divorce courts and the judges who rule on them if this system is to be deemed as "justice". The amount of alimoney should be calculated on the "real" effort that a woman has contributed to the success of her ex-husband's efforts, and also the effect of her lack of support of the husbands endeavors to provide for her (and family) a comfortable lifestyle. The amount of hinderance such as continual nagging and conserted effort to demoralize the husband should be considered and discounted from the amount awarded. In some cases this would often mean that the wife would be paying the husband for all the "damage" done by her actions of undermining the succes of the husbands efforts.

That's why they call divorce the screwing you get for the screwing you got.

I think that since women want to be set "equal" to men, they should stop complaining and start doing some work, I am sure Ms Redstone didn't put in 1 hour of work in the 52 year marriage. She should only leave with what she came with

It is simple. All women are prostitutes.. Some walk the street.. some marry rich men. We all have our price. Remember.. If a women did not have a vagina..what the sense in even talking to them.

I DONT BELEIVE IN ALIMONY WHAT YOU EARN SHOULD BE YOURS AND NOT HANDED OVER TO SOMEBODY WHO DIDDNT EARN IT SHE NEED TO GET A JOB AND FIND OUT WHAT MONEY IS REALLY ABOUT

No wonder fewer and fewer people are getting married. The one who has the greatest earning potential isn't going to risk the inequity of such a proposed distribution as this, should the marriage founder. In the end, what a shame for society, this "entitlement" thinking.

There is a contract offered for you to sign. You are not privy to the terms of this contract unless you are a lawyer specializing in such. Furthermore, the terms of this device are different in the different states. . .AND the terms may change (and ARE changed) over time and/or court opinions. . .This contract is BINDING!. . . Will you sign it?

This contract is called A MARRIAGE LICENSE!

I think the old man owes her some money, enough to live on well, but what 74 year old needs 3 billion. As for the adultery, I don't know the details, but since when is photos of man holding a woman's hand adequate evidence of adultery. I don't believe in women in a divorce getting nothing, and in most cases half is pretty fair, but in situations like this, it's not like he's leaving her broke on the side of the road. I can't imagine what she would do with 3 billion, for that matter I can't imagine what he would do with even 3 billion, but it's the principle of the thing, your fair share should be, if at all possible, enough to live comfortably on. No one needs 3 billion. My opinion on the issue is that each of them should get 1 billion and they should then send the remaining 4 to me. (j/k)

As for Mike this should stand as a shining example, that marrying a girl is not one of the things you should resort to to get in a girls pants.

As a woman, I suppose I represent a minority in this issue. it is my opinion that women are too greedy-grabby when it comes to divorce. And yes, I am divorced. when my ex and I called it quits, we divided what we had acquired together equally and went our separate ways. So I don't understand all the hoo-ha about getting "her fair share". My fair share was a truck payment I couldn't afford and two credit cards that were maxed out. I even took care of his stupid fish until he could come get them...and he got my fish tank! So I think that 3 billion is a little excessive. I understand that maybe she cannot support herself...after all, I'm sure that she hasn't been in the work force in the last few decades. And probably doesn't qualify for SS benifits. But 3 billion?! Are there any children? Are they to be provided for? Do they need the money? I can see providing for her final years but I'm with you... I could retire on WAYS less and be comfortable for the rest of my life and I'm only 30!!! Yes, it's excessive. It's ridiculous!!!

Do the Redstones have any children? Would they like to adopt anyone? I'm in good health and I would not be a burden. I'm available for adoption and will give a sympathetic ear and warm affection. I can contacted at the above referenced e-mail address if either Mr. or Mrs. Redstone needs my affection.

Was Sarah Oldfield's settlement based on the kind of marital equity that's going on in Massachusetts 23 years later?<p> You seem to be Outraged at the old alimony and "manner to which she has become accustomed" rules, or some other pooling of assets, which is not present here.<p> While Mrs. Redstone is alleging adultery, she is apparently, as others have pointed out, suing for a no-fault divorce.<p> What's fair? I don't know, but I'm a lot more comfortable with an even split of the partnership than the alternative, which is that the money follows in whose name it was earned, or in whose name it was kept.<p> Mrs. Redstone's two retractions of prior divorce attempts show only that she does take marriage seriously, and does not take divorce lightly. Were she in it for the money she would have taken it and ran when it reached $5 Billion.<p> If Sumner had wanted a better deal, he should have made a pre-nuptial contract, or hired a mistress at far less than $100 Million per year.<p> As others said, how much of the $6 Billion is from Sumner, how much would it have been from anyone with Mrs. Redstone at home (there's that joke about the Clintons getting gas at a station attended by an ex-boyfriend of Hillary) and how much is just luck?<p> (BTW, I'm sole breadwinner for a family of myself, my spouse, and three children. I think my support is a large part of what induced her to give up her career to bear and raise our children.)

I am amused that poor dear Phyllis feels she needs 3 billion to live comfortably. Just how much comfort does one need? I am also amused at the "outrage" of some of the postings here about the old man's adultery. My God, we have an adulterer and a perjurer in the Whitehouse and nodoby cares, so what's the big deal with old man Redstone?

Perhaps poor dear Phyllis was a miserable creature to live with and Redstone found solace elsewhere. We will never know. It seems however, some of those posting here are perfectly willing to condemn him, but get their collective feathers ruffled at any sugestion of impropriety in the part of Phyllis. Baloney!

No way is she "entitled" to 3 Billion dollars. Redstone can set her up in a house you and I could only dream about and pay her expenses - even give her 25,000 a month to blow on whatever she choses - maybe he "owes" her that, and maybe not.

But three billion? Give me a break...

The fact that Mr. Redstone is a wealthy, successful businessman DOES NOT mean that he is a nice, kind, rational, understanding, wonderful...anything. One might argue that Mrs. Redstone put up with the cheating #$%& for 52 years. Hard to say how much money that ought to be worth!

Mrs. Redstone is entitled to atleast half of everything this man has acquired since their marriage. I say at least because he takes the "earning power" with him. I obtained a divorce three years ago and without asking was awarded approximately half our possessions. I married this jerk 25 years ago when I was a young and truly beautiful person. could have married somebody who would have treated me much better. I helped this man every step of the way despite bad treatment. How much would you sell youth, beauty and health for? I declined better offers and married for love only to find out his form of love was contro, spite and philandering. I was a wonderful mother to his two children, without which he could not have accumulated nearly aas much. He "forbade" me to work outside the home or his office or to get training to support myself. And nowlisten to him whine about paying alimony! You seem to think it is OK to use women, use up their years of productivity and good health and then dump them for a ynger version. What are we first wives supposed to do? Just go on food stamps while r. Creep buys the new chick a $40KLincoln? Oh, I think not. You deadbeats should think about what you are risking when you are abusive or fool around. I think women are entitled to at least half plus alimony until they remarry plus ealth insurance and anything else to keep us from having our lifestyles plumme because creeps get tired of us and want some new action. IF you want to play, pay the price and shut up about it.

First of all, please don't get so cute about a perfectly fine word like 'misogynist'. If a writer had called you 'woman hater', then you would likely have mocked an imagined lack of vocabulary skill. Some of your 'rages' lately have been silly sophistry like this.

Regarding whether you are one or not, I will reserve judgement.

Several other writers have already pointed out that the whole point of 50-50 splits is the fact that we have no-fault divorce, and the split is based on a supposed partnership over the life of the marriage. You ask: 'Where would she be today if...', but that can be turned around and asked: 'Where would he be if...'.

I don't know Sumner Redstone, but isn't it possible that BECAUSE OF Mrs. Redstone's participation in the marriage that he is where he is today? I don't have as much as he does, but I'd have no problem splitting what I do have with my 'better half' if it came to that. Although she hasn't put in a 40-hour week for more than a few months at a time during our 17+ years together, I wouldn't have as much as I do have without her. Most happily married men would be honest enough to admit that, I'm sure. (If a husband is honest, I would be willing to bet that he is happy. Those traits seem to go together, I've found.)

If you're not married, and haven't been, maybe you should stick to raging about something that you know more about, or something that your audience doesn't know at all.

I don't know the facts of the Redstone marriage any more than you do, but I think I know more about marriage than you. Have you ever printed a retraction? This might be a good time to start.

Chris

Hmmm...for that matter, aren't we missing the point? Isn't this no-fault divorce b/s PRECISELY what allows this sort of nonsense to begin with? True, the wealthy hubby did play bedsheet bingo...still...3 mil for THAT? You've gotta be kidding. I may think corporate types are primordial slime, but u really gotta wonder when people can become independently wealthy by singing "d-i-v-o-r-c-e".

I think people who get devorced should get out of a marrage what they put into the marrage as far as settlement. However if children are involved child support should be paid to the parent who has custody. I think there should be stiff laws against dead beat parents Men or women It takes two to tango and one parent should not have all the respondsability of raising children

No - It is not too much. She stood by him for 50+ years. She expected the same of him. All assets should be split 50/50 regardless.

Americans have no concept of marriage anymore. Living together and divorce have become common practice. Money is their only reason for living. Nothing else matters it seems anymore. Does cherish, love, honor, care for and being human ring a bell at all? I don't think so. I'd have more respect for a lady that was born back when there was more awareness of the true priorities. Everyone is "outraged" because they envy and are greedy and their eyes pop at the sums of money involved. It's greed and hypocritical stances on things Americans no longer care about. It's not love, it's sex -- that's their catchphrase and MONEY, always money.

I don't necessarily disagree with you (even though I'm a woman). $3B does seem rather excessive, but it's difficult to tell without the whole story, which of course, no one will ever know (there's always three sides to every divorse, his story, her story and the real story). As a person who grew up in a family torn apart by infidelity, I could certainly understand her desire to "make him pay through the nose", if in fact he was cavorting with a 46 year old change of underwear. Unless you have lived through that kind of devastation in your marriage, you cannot understand what it does to you nor the extremes to which you are willing to go to seek retribution from the offending spouse. So I guess to sum up my opinion, it just depends...

I detest alimony but I think that equitable division is certainly warranted. I think you should be able to leave a marriage with what you came into it and half of what's remaining. I would assume that after more than 50 years there's nothing left og what you came into it with and you should get half, pure, plain, ans simple.

Been there done that twice at a couple of hundred thousand each time all I got was bad credit, why get married?

I think it is ridiculous. Yes, as a woman, I believe that you should have a comparable lifestyle. If the same lifestyle is what you want, stay married. Since she is self sufficient enough to get a lawyer, she should apply the same energy to finding her own financing. There are no children to care for.....nothing. If it was a mutual agreement for her to stay home, then she should get enough to live comfortably, but 3 bill. is too much! If they have that much to play with, then they could make several families wealthy. Make a donation, but please, what is a 76 yr old woman going to do with all of that $$$.

The main reason for so great a request is to pay the attorney's 30 to 40% of the gross settlement.

If she really loved Him, she would not want one penny of his money. She is being a selfish egotcentric woman who has one thing on here mind. MONEY

I married a cuban girl and was so convinced - and I'm not one of these grandfathers that normally marry young girls over there. She turned out to be the most deceptive person I've ever seen and I mean you have no idea what I went through to get her here or how much I gave up. Then she wanted to be close to her family so I left my job and gave up my life for her and moved thousands of miles away . As soon as we arrived she said she wanted nothing more of the relationship and was telling me that she had lied to me from day one. She showed absolutely no remorse!! I am completely baffled and I know everyone says BE CAREFUL OF CUBANS CAUSE THEY ALL JUST WANT THERE TICKET OUT" but I have spent a considerable amount of time in cuba and I knew all of the girls that were interested in that - or I thought I did anyways. This girl was a virgin when we met and after we got married and I was back in my country doing everything in my power to get her here (and that wasn't cheap either - but to me the money is of minimal importance overall) and she had been sleeping with another guy. this went on from just after we got married untill she arrived over here - that was one year. Then after she got here she behaved in a very disrespectful way and when I confronted her about it she would swear at me and threaten to move to be with friends or relatives . She wanted it her way - leaching from me untill I had very little left to give and then she did move in with a friend. This is a girl from cuba who had NOTHING and I gave her everything , dresses, expensive clothes , shoes , make-up, hair appointments, manicurists, etc. and that wasn't sufficient for this poor girl from a hicktown in cuba. So the moral of this story is that sometimes even when you have what you think is a clear perception on a given situation, the very real threat of deception is still a possibility. Like I said I've spent alot of time in Cuba and I knew the girl for two years.

Why do most of the women who post here assume that the woman in question did a damn thing in the marrige beside sit on her ass and soak up the rich man's cash? This may or may not be the case, but please do not try to argue a point unless you know both sides. We know what he did: he built a huge company worth billions. We don't know what she did.

Maybe she was supportive.

Maybe she took care of the children and entertained guests.

Maybe she is a paraniod, senile old woman who made this man's life a living hell, and he didn't want a divorce because he knew she would take half of his money so he put up with her crap.

My point is that no one posting here knows any facts about their relationship and should not assume that this woman was anything but a pampered, rich lady.

Daniel

I'm a female, and men get a raw deal in divorce court. For one thing, why do women always get custody when so many men are just as loving fathers as women are loving mothers? Is it because it's better to have a Mom struggling with a secretarial job than a father securely fixed in a good job? As for finances, anybody in a divorce wants revenge. If the courts didn't favor women financially, many men would milk it for all it's worth as well. Basically, if you commit to a marriage and then back out, be prepared to pay for the undeserved privilege of ending your contract, be you man or women, and forget about revenge--it doesn't work.

There is a name for women who think having sex with a man is cause for asking for money: WHORE.

She deserves every dime she gets after all she gave up her whole life for him and he in turn makes her feel like a piece of trash at an age when women feel abit "less then".. He committed adultery on her and she should just sit back and let him have his play thing at the expense of $ 3 billion dollars.... i don't feel the least bit sorry for the jerk.. Why do you????

Absolutely not! I am outraged at the Outrage writer for their chauvenistic view of women and men. If Mrs. Redstone isn't entitled to the $3 billion then why should Mr. Redstone be entitled to twice as much?

Ok, I disagree. I think that if the other spouse, (man or woman) is caught cheating, the spouse they cheated on should get half of everything they have in a divorce. For emotional damage/ embarrassment.

I agree that it is an outrage! My ex gets half of my Federal retirement without spending a day doing the back-breaking work

When people enter into marriage it is a contract. After 52 years I believe she is due half of whatever is mutual property. After all, she was his wife, probably raised his children, ran his household, entertained his friends and business associates in fine style and in many ways helped him to make his fortune. Morally he is in the wrong. You opinion takes women back to the middle ages, when woman were no more than chatel. What do you care anyway??? No matter what, it's their money.

I think the amount of money she is asking for is ridiculous. They did have a partnership and she is now too old to go work for retirement money, so I believe she is entitled to some money. Especially if he's the one cheating on her. He destroyed the marriage, not her. Anyway, give her half a million. That should be plenty if invested correctly.

1. The charges of adultery should be proven, and if true, then the two adulterers should be killed. 2. No divorce would be necessary then. 3. Allowing divorces, then we must allow outragous "settlements" such as $3billion buyouts.

Once married, two people should share the work and reap the benefits. Once divoced everything obtained durning the marriage should be sold off and split 50/50.

I will NEVER marry again. I dont think people understand the words... "For better or worse or till death do us part".

I am old fashioned and I don't think much of the liberation crap women are spewing these days. Unusual for a lady of 33. Anyway... Lets see... what does a good housekeeper make per hour/week/year... what does a good child care provider make??? What does a good hooker make? (or should I say cost?) What does a good companion make, you know, those people who get paid to hang out with someone. Then figure in how much mental stress/deress whatever that seeing pix of your hubby with the homewrecker causes (some kind of world wide scale of pain compensation needs to be devised) Anyway... point is.. add it all up. NOW,(deducting of course things like... well if he wasn't allowed acces to his wife one night and paid a hooker instead, or if she hired a housekeeper to do her work) Alright.. adding up all her contributions to the marriage, come up with a $ amount. Then deduct what she got... like free room and board, 50 some odd years of not having to worry about the water heater or the tires on the car. (that would be peace of mind or something like that) subtract the cost of all the diamonds (I am sure she has a collection going after that many years with a wealthy man!) Alright.. alright.. point is this.. add up her worth and contributions, subtract whatever she got over the years... and presto... you get a $ amount. NOW... I would like to think that this would be a even steven amount.. but I doupt it... I am guessing that the lady is going to end up oweing the guy quite a bit of dough! My basic philosiphy is this, if you don't want the guy anymore, why do you want his stuff... especially if lady's are as equal as they say they are. I would like to go on record as being one of the few women who left the marriage without asking for a single thing! As a matter of fact, I left the guy with excatly what he had when we get married. and I took only what I had when we got married. (okay so we were not rich, and we were only married 9 months, no children) but still... the point is the one who wants out.. should be willing to walk away. Although.. I do see the "He hurt my feelings by screwing some chick in two seperate places... and there should be a sliding scale to say how much that is worth in dollars and cents to the injured person. My Grand Mem'ere (we are French and that means great grammy) said, It takes two to make or break a marriage. Very seldom is one person solely responcible... What did or didn't this lady do in the marriage?? Did hubby go on Viagra and wife said, get off it old man, I did my time!? Alright.. I know my two cents aren't worth much.. especially in this day and age (the whole world has gone strange Martha! But I'll save this thought for when the outrage is about children running amuck) Anyway.. sure my openion isn't worth much, and I am sure all the ladies are going to be pi$$ed about it, but hey, if we are as equal as you like to think we are, get up off your butt and creat your own fortune! IF she was living as a good wife, cooking and cleaning and sewing, caring for the children day in day out... and he was a thoughtless bum who screwed around, though his loving wife was home with dinner waiting... then I might have some sympathy for her.... but I doubt I would ever feel 3 billion worth of sympathy! Lets face it, IF they have been together that long... I am guessing all the children are mutual and going to get it in the end anyway right? So all she really needs is enough money a week to live on... 3 billion devided by the number of months this lady has left on eath is a rediculously HUGE allowance!

What Mrs. Redstone did to earn 3 billion dollars was to be married to anyone for 50+ years. That should qualify her for sainthood in any ones opinion.

the adulterous partner should get less than the innocent one, but the reverse is almost always true. If theyr'e equally at fault, split the assets equally. It's about time that this country returns to morality.

Shameless excess on the part of all concerned!!!

A private detective who "supposedly" produced pictures. Not much of a private detective if the "homebreaker" is unidentified. Nothing was said about her nefarious activities. And yes, the divorce laws are biased toward women. A friend of mine walked into and found his wife in bed with another man, making love to another man in front of their 4 year old son. She filed for divorce, and was awarded alimony, child support, one of the vehicles (he had to continue making payments, and insurance.)

My wife left me, left my sons for 6 years, nobody knew where she went, when she returned, I spent $30,000 trying to maintain custody and lost it.

The old joke is, "I ain't getting married no more, I'm just going out every 3 or 4 years, find me a woman I hate, and buy her a house." pretty well sums up the unfairness of the divorce laws in this country.

What's equitable to Sumner? He's got the 6b she's got squat at this point. She's sure to live comforably for the rest of her life, which could be short if she turns into a greedy bitch.

this is a little excessive 3 billion, i am sure one of them can learn to live a different life style, just like anyone else in america!!!

Mike Oldfield got what he deserved for thinking with the small head.

As to the rest, fair division of assets. I have a friend who has; by staying home as an agreement with her spouse, effectively killed her (prior to the children) career. She manages the house on far lesss $ than if she worked, each day is actively mamaging their house & kids & life. She never pays full price for anything, She researches & they discuss & then a decision is reached. If they were to divorce she would be the primary care person & would require assistance.

How ever I see men lose custody & assets to wives who were neither career or family enhancing in their participation in the marriage.

The real answer is, it depends on the situation, there are no hard fast rukes for this & in trying to rectify some inequities the law is unfair. Then come the divorce lawyers who encourage the mess rather than negotiation & faor divisions. Now they should have some kind of review board routinely scrutinizing their work to see exactly what they are up to ( usually no good).

What I want to know is what is Phyllis Redstone's address and do you think she would like a mail in his forties? but only if she wins.

I do consider your opinions bias. A woman that has been married to a man for 52 years does not divorce for no reason. And you cannot say what type of life she lived wih him. Do you think he made his billions by being Mr. Nice guy? Alot of men that abuse their wives live in fine homes and make excellent money. I am not saying he did, but some do. Are they living a life of luxury? I think that a marriage is equal and the woman does work whether it is inside or outside of the home.

I guess it just goes to show how much the man's brainless head is coached into these situations - yet we follow and return time after time - oh well life is grand - been there done that

After all she has been trough the courts should give her all the money. The sucker screwed his half away long ago.

Interesting that the ONE comment glorifying the woman's side, was FROM a woman. It figures. She doesn't mention WHY the man felt it was necessary to philander. Was the little woman withholding the "candy" because he was not a "good little boy"? Definitely the case in a LOT of marriages.Could it be that she feels it is necessary to have that much money, since she might have suffered from a plethora of "headaches"?

I found more humor than outrage. At their ages it's ridiculous to even contemplate all that money. They'll both be dead before a court can decide the issue.

Of course she is due everything she is asking for!! He should have realized that the 47 yr old fluzzie he was getting it on with in Paris wouldn't have come cheap in the long run!!

divorce is an antiquated law that in most cases serves no purpose. the vast majority of women work now. the laws are from a period in time when the woman did not work. why pay a woman, why not got separate ways. i'm still paying and will be for the rest of my life to a woman that had her boyfriend send me overseas for a year then divorced me, taking everything i owned, taking my child, leaving me with all the bills, taking half of my retirement and sticking me with the lawyer bills, and why, because the laws are biased towards the poor helpless and defenseless weaker sex, pure bs. phyllis deserves what she walked into the marriage with.

Hell Yeah its to much hell 500 mil is to much how she going to spend it at 76 years old and you realize what you could buy for 500 million alone ! damn

You did say Viagracom, didn't you?!?

My opinion: There is no mention of what Phyllis did to help her husband through all their married years raising the children, being a good supportive wife (which sometimes is a job in itself with a lot of men), not to say anything about what she did for their business, which is maybe more than anyone realizes. Remember, behind every good man is a good woman. He is the one that cheated on her, not the other way around. He lost his morals, she didn't. Cheating on your spouse to me is one of the worse things that a person can do.

You're missing the point with respect to the divorce request; I can't speak to Massachusetts exactly, but in many states, the law treats a married couple as one person. As a result, each partner owns half of the marital property. So when the partnership splits, the marital property is split. 50/50.

It's most often a matter of legislation, so if you don't like the law, change it. :-)

Philo