Gut Rumbles
 

January 06, 2005

he got off easy

I believe that I would rather have testicular cancer or a case of herpes than an ex-wife. At least medical science holds out hope for a cure for those diseases. If you have a vindictive ex-wife, you are doomed. You're stuck with THE LAW, and science can't help you there.

Swofford, 53, and his wife separated three years ago. But two weeks after the winning numbers were announced, Ann Swofford served him with divorce papers and claimed a share of the prize.

Just before Christmas, the Swoffords and their lawyers hammered out an agreement. His wife will get $5.25 million and $1 million will be set aside to support their 11-year-old son. In return, she agreed not to seek any more of Swofford's winnings.

At the risk of sounding misogynistic and bitter (which I am), I want to ask a question--- just what in the hell did that bitch do to deserve $5.25 million? Other than be a goddam vampire?

I can understand the court ordering the (now, officially) ex-husband to set up something for his son, but I believe that any loving father would do that of his own accord and be more generous than the judge was. But $5.25 million to the ex-wife just because.... she wasn't legally an ex-wife during the three years she separated from her husband? I think that's outrageous.

But I also know that the guy got off easy. She could have gone for half and gotten it.

Comments

At least he now knows what her price is for her dignity and self-respect..

"We've already established what you are, honey, now we're just haggling about the price".

Posted by: Light & Dark on January 6, 2005 11:23 PM

now you know why I never married or had kids. Sheesh, that shit scares me.

Posted by: marcl on January 7, 2005 01:58 AM

I would set fire to the pile of cash in the town square in public before that bitch saw a dollar of the winnings.
I would get a land shark aka lawyer to trust a wad to the boy in a way she couldn't lay her hands on it.
Mysoginist?
You bet.

Keep the fuck away from me.

Posted by: Henry Blowfly on January 7, 2005 10:44 AM

Rob, Rob, Rob ... as I know you know by now (and I have had ample opportunity to learn), the family court systems isn't about what's right or fair or even sane - the feminists have turned it into a legally-sanctioned gutting of the man, so that all that's left after the divorce is a piece of flayed, mutilated skin that they can nail on the barn door as an example to the others.

And for any of you whiners who think that's an exaggeration, just go to divorce court some day and watch for awhile. What happens in there makes the tsunami disaster look like a cake walk.

Posted by: maggot on January 7, 2005 12:39 PM

When I view even an average woman's eye on the main chance, I'm convinced they all believe they have the only one.

Posted by: Brett on January 7, 2005 02:36 PM

Assuming their marriage lasted at least the 11 years they had a son, even if they were divorced three years ago she could have had her alimony adjusted to meet his current “income.” Or, she would seek child support payments that “ensure the boy is raised in a fashion that provides a lifestyle equitable to one had he been raised by his dad.” In other words, until the boy turns 18 she could have gotten at least half one way or another.

Posted by: Pete on January 7, 2005 05:33 PM
Post a comment














*Note: If you are commenting on an older entry, your
comment will not appear until it has been approved.
Do not resubmit it.