Post by khankrumthebulgar on Aug 22, 2009 9:03:51 GMT -5
By Robert Franklin, Esq. | Aug 21, 2009
'I got off lightly. Think what I'd have had to pay Alyce if she'd contributed anything to the relationship.' - John Cleese on his latest divorce.
According to this article, Monty Python alumnus John Cleese has agreed to pay his ex-wife, Alyce Faye Eichelberger about $12.5 million in cash and assets plus $1 million per year for the next seven years (Daily Mail, 8/18/09). The divorce settlement will make his wife wealthier than he is and force the 69-year old comedian and actor to continue working to make the payments. According to Cleese friend, Michael Winner,
'Alyce lived in a council flat when they met. There are no dependent children. Yet she's getting some $13 million in cash and assets (£8million). Plus a further $1 million (£612,000 a year for seven years).
No one feels truly sorry for a man who's worth millions, but the case does illustrate the fact that family law at times seems to traffic in lunacy. The couple married in 1992, long after Cleese and the other Pythons were well known and, I would guess, well-to-do financially.
So the theory that Cleese owes Eichelberger half his assets because she was indispensible to his career is nonsense. But if that's not the theory, what is it? They have no children to support, so I'm unclear on what precisely entitles her to most of the money he made. How is it possible that she should deserve more of what he made for them than he does? However much contempt society may express for the doings of men, shouldn't someone like Cleese at least get to keep most of what he made? After all, it was he, not she, who made it.
And what's this about alimony? Eichelberger walks away with over $12 million and still needs to be taken care of? There was a time when feminists pretended to oppose alimony. But just try to find a feminist these days who complains about the patently unjust system, much less lifts a finger to stop it. You'd sooner find a Marxist on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
But let's ask Cleese what he thinks.
'At some point you say, "Well, what did I do wrong?" The system is insane.'
And by the way, the divorce was filed in a U.S. court applying, presumably, the law of the state in which the court sits.
Thanks to Duncan for the heads-up.
'I got off lightly. Think what I'd have had to pay Alyce if she'd contributed anything to the relationship.' - John Cleese on his latest divorce.
According to this article, Monty Python alumnus John Cleese has agreed to pay his ex-wife, Alyce Faye Eichelberger about $12.5 million in cash and assets plus $1 million per year for the next seven years (Daily Mail, 8/18/09). The divorce settlement will make his wife wealthier than he is and force the 69-year old comedian and actor to continue working to make the payments. According to Cleese friend, Michael Winner,
'Alyce lived in a council flat when they met. There are no dependent children. Yet she's getting some $13 million in cash and assets (£8million). Plus a further $1 million (£612,000 a year for seven years).
No one feels truly sorry for a man who's worth millions, but the case does illustrate the fact that family law at times seems to traffic in lunacy. The couple married in 1992, long after Cleese and the other Pythons were well known and, I would guess, well-to-do financially.
So the theory that Cleese owes Eichelberger half his assets because she was indispensible to his career is nonsense. But if that's not the theory, what is it? They have no children to support, so I'm unclear on what precisely entitles her to most of the money he made. How is it possible that she should deserve more of what he made for them than he does? However much contempt society may express for the doings of men, shouldn't someone like Cleese at least get to keep most of what he made? After all, it was he, not she, who made it.
And what's this about alimony? Eichelberger walks away with over $12 million and still needs to be taken care of? There was a time when feminists pretended to oppose alimony. But just try to find a feminist these days who complains about the patently unjust system, much less lifts a finger to stop it. You'd sooner find a Marxist on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
But let's ask Cleese what he thinks.
'At some point you say, "Well, what did I do wrong?" The system is insane.'
And by the way, the divorce was filed in a U.S. court applying, presumably, the law of the state in which the court sits.
Thanks to Duncan for the heads-up.
