It's funny how nasty behavior will lead people to not like you.

I wonder if this will cut into the money he has available to donate to political causes.

sometimes you feel like a nut...

New Lethal Weapon movie in 5, 4, 3, 2...

Clearly the Jews are responsible for this.

Hmm. Maybe she finally got tired of hearing how she was going to hell.

This is wonderful news, but I don't understand how anyone who walks away with $450 million could also require spousal support and attorney's fees.

Just heard that he's claiming that they separated in August of 2006 - a month after his drunk driving rant. Hmmmm.

Why shouldn't she ask for spousal support and attorney fees on top of the $450 million, if she legally qualifies for it? Essentially, she's saying that after the divorce she should be no worse off than before it. I don't know if that's "fair", but then again it's not "fair" that Mel Gibson or anyone else has $900 million in the first place.

I simply meant I didn't understand it, not that anything was unfair. It seems to me like with $450 million all to herself she could support and pay lawyers herself. But there are a lot of things I don't understand about the law.

I guess I should make clear that I'm not questioning spousal support payments or attorney's fees in general. And in this specific case I don't mind seeing a man kicked when he's down. It just seems like gouging, is all, with the staggering amount she's already due, to make him pay for her upkeep as well. I think after the divorce, even without the extra payments, she'll be better off than before it: the money will be hers and hers alone, and she won't be married to a jerk anymore.

This is a terrifying conversation, though. If anyone's really offended by my ignorance or my cavalier disregard for the property rights of divorced women, please understand that I'm just bewildered by this case, only because of the huge amount involved. I'm definitely not attacking anyone here in specific, or any group or class of person in general. If anyone thinks I'm being overly cautious by including this caveat, I don't know what to say.

I guess it's probably typical in divorces, like in other business transactions, for people to propose in the initial paperwork that they get whatever the law might allow, since the outcome of even straightforward proceedings having to do with money can be unexpectedly complicated.

Thanks for the clarification, HJ, and I apologize if I put you on the spot or anything. I get a little touchy sometimes when it comes to celebrity divorces, because so often I feel like the less-famous spouse (usually the wife) is unfairly questioned.

Besides that, there's this perception sometimes that $450 million dollars will be handed over in cash, when usually most of that stuff is tied up in assets that aren't or shouldn't be made liquid. Also, I believe spousal support is usually granted only temporarily, so it makes sense that someone married to a celebrity would need a few months/years worth of cash until the divorce is finalized and he/she can start arranging their finances independently.

Thanks muddgirl, that really makes sense about the liquidity of assets and the delay in cash flow. I see that Mel's filed his own court papers; I guess I just don't know much of anything about how these things play out, and such giant figures obscure the fact that the law is for everybody, not just the rich. For most people, half the assets isn't such a prize.

Toecutter could've helped out here.

Wait. I thought Catholics don't get divorced.