dean Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 I did hear yesterday the reason that he waited until the day after FB went public to get married. According to California law, money acquired during marriage is considered joint money. I guess he is not a complete idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dean Posted May 22, 2012 Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 By the way, FB is down another 7.5% five minutes after the market opened. I don't think I will have to wait long until it hits its 25 a share original proposed price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 22, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 22, 2012 I did hear yesterday the reason that he waited until the day after FB went public to get married. According to California law, money acquired during marriage is considered joint money. I guess he is not a complete idiot. The very worst place on this planet to get married in is the state of California. Pre-nups, etc. means jack squat to the courts there. They will and have reversed many a nuptial contract. Thinking that if he marries her after the IPO will save him money makes me think he's even a bigger idiot actually knowing how California is. I know why she's smiling in her pic. She just hit the lottery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted May 23, 2012 Report Share Posted May 23, 2012 Money aside, and yes she looks Asian, and he's a dork - but it isn't really unusual for a couple to get married after being together 9 years is it? As for the money, if "he" loses half in a divorce, or even 80%, would it really be the end of the world for the guy? It would be very hard to argue (in court, or a forum such as this) that she didn't have much to do with the whole facebook idea and startup. Good luck to 'em. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 Money aside, and yes she looks Asian, and he's a dork - but it isn't really unusual for a couple to get married after being together 9 years is it? As for the money, if "he" loses half in a divorce, or even 80%, would it really be the end of the world for the guy? It would be very hard to argue (in court, or a forum such as this) that she didn't have much to do with the whole facebook idea and startup. Good luck to 'em. RB, when it comes to love and relationships I'm a cyncal bastard who has trust and committment issues. 9 years! I don't know if the rules have changed but there was that famous case back in the '70s I think where some chick got alimony even though she wasn't married to the guy (the name Marvinson comes to mind but I'm too lazy to google while I'm typing right now). It was in..guess? California! Last 9 years he's been The Man. Can't believe he's only been banging one chick the whole time. No problem with having a main squeeze but if he's only been with her for the last 9 years, any shred of respect I had for him is now gone. Do you know how many playmates, Maxim women and penthouse pets not to mention porn stars, I would have gone through in that time? I'm willing to bet this chick has never given him anal...and probably doesn't even swallow. Zuckerberg you DUMB ASS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redbaron Posted May 24, 2012 Report Share Posted May 24, 2012 I'm with you stevie, 9 years would be a record for me by a long way. If it was you or I, or dare I say it 90% of the members of this forum we'd be living the dream. No doubt. Not sure what it's like in the US but down under if a couple have been shagging, screwing, fucking and sucking co-habitating for 6+ months or maybe it's a year, legally their "property" is considered the same as if they were married. IE if they separate, it's game on. Obviously, and rightly so if there are kids involved, it's a whole new ball game (and a miracle if they were only together 6 months!). In Zucker and Chan's case, I honestly think that there will be more than enough cash to keep everyone fed for a while if they ever do split, and I hope for his sake, she takes it up the shitter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baa99 Posted May 25, 2012 Report Share Posted May 25, 2012 RB, when it comes to love and relationships I'm a cyncal bastard who has trust and committment issues. 9 years! I don't know if the rules have changed but there was that famous case back in the '70s I think where some chick got alimony even though she wasn't married to the guy (the name Marvinson comes to mind but I'm too lazy to google while I'm typing right now). It was in..guess? California! ... In 1971, Michelle Marvin claimed that actor Lee Marvin, who was still married at the time they began living together, had promised to support her for the rest of her life. In the end, in Marvin v. Marvin, the California Supreme Court ruled that Michelle Triola Marvin had not proven the existence of a contract between herself and Mr. Marvin that gave her an interest in his property. Thus, the common law rule applied to the situation without alteration, and she took away from the relationship and the household what she brought to it. The Court went on to explain that while the state abolished common law marriage in 1896, California law recognizes non-marital relationship contracts. These contracts may be express or implied, oral or written—but they must be provable in any case. The contract may also provide for a sexual relationship as long as it is not a contract for sexual services. Eventually, the California Court of Appeal ruled that since Michelle Triola (later she changed her name) and Lee Marvin never had a contract, she was not entitled to any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 26, 2012 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 Zuckerberg spent his 20s with this chick. His best years (as a young virile man) and he is rich. Those were the years to bang everything with a pretty face and nice firm ass. Get married but sew some friggin' wild oats first. Its not the money, he'll always have more than enogh money no matter what happens but why give money away needlessly? I think he joined that club that donates their money to charity after they die (Die broke thingy), give it to them instead of someone who will spend it conspicously and it may end up going in part to the next guy she bangs (although I suspect any woman that smart will stay unmarried after she divorces him or at least marries someone as rich or richer). After a few years or even several years he'll be in his late 30s or early 40s like a lot of us here on this forum want to bang something new after the missus has long stopped giving head much less sex. baa99, thanks for the post. Lee Marvin, now it comes back. Recall hearing about it. Good actor by the way, made some fun movies. As for the case guys lie to women (and visa versa). Especially married guys to keep banging the mistress. That's been going on since time eternal. Can't legistlate that. If I was the judge I'd rule there should have been a reasonable expectency that Lee Marvin wouldn't keep his promise since the lying husband is pretty much a cliche that books and movies have had ad nauseum. But that's me. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg had a great quote that Zuckerberg should have heeded: " he once told a reporter. "Let me put it this way: I am a single, straight billionaire in Manhattan. What do you think? It's a wet dream." Love that quote. "I'm a single, straight falang on holiday in Pattaya with my annual bonus check. What do you think? Its a wet dream." -- Chocolat Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamui Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 I'm with you stevie, 9 years would be a record for me by a long way. If it was you or I, or dare I say it 90% of the members of this forum we'd be living the dream. No doubt. Not sure what it's like in the US but down under if a couple have been shagging, screwing, fucking and sucking co-habitating for 6+ months or maybe it's a year, legally their "property" is considered the same as if they were married. IE if they separate, it's game on. Obviously, and rightly so if there are kids involved, it's a whole new ball game (and a miracle if they were only together 6 months!). In Zucker and Chan's case, I honestly think that there will be more than enough cash to keep everyone fed for a while if they ever do split, and I hope for his sake, she takes it up the shitter. She seems to be a tough girl. When they moved to a new city for running Facebook some year ago, she made contract with him about the minimum time they would see each other during the week. Anyway, I think the women keeps him grounded in the world of the super rich. BUT why shouldn't he frequent high class whores frequently? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baa99 Posted May 26, 2012 Report Share Posted May 26, 2012 She seems to be a tough girl. When they moved to a new city for running Facebook some year ago, she made contract with him about the minimum time they would see each other during the week. Anyway, I think the women keeps him grounded in the world of the super rich. BUT why shouldn't he frequent high class whores frequently? ... just ask Tiger Woods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.