Saturday, March 1, 2014

What's bad for the goose...

Is also bad for the gander:
Victoria Luckwell, 37, whose father Mike set up The Moving Picture Company, and is worth an estimated £135 million, said the current legal system in Britain acted as a “disincentive” for the rich to wed, because they had no way of protecting their family’s assets.

Her comments came after her ex-husband, Frankie Limata was handed a £1.2 million payout by a judge, despite having signed numerous prenuptial agreements waiving his right to any of his wife’s money.

Miss Luckwell has been told by a judge that she must provide him with £900,000 to buy a home plus £300,000 to pay off his debts, buy a car and furnish his home.

As she left court she said: "Sadly I am left to conclude there is a strong financial disincentive for a wealthy woman to marry if she cannot be assured of protecting her family's assets. Simply put, this is a gold-digger's charter." 
This is first-rate black-knighting. An unemployed man marries a rich woman, signs several prenups, then gets them all overturned and walks away with more than a million dollars. But it is still reflective of the Female Imperative ruling the courts in the UK and the USA. Imagine how much Mrs. Luckwell would have squealed if she'd been forced to give up half her wealth, as many men have, instead of less than ONE percent of it.

If Mrs. Luckwell's advice is true for wealthy women, it must be FIFTY times more important for wealthy men to avoid marriage.


Laguna Beach Fogey said...

True that. That's enough dosh to set up a superb bachelor pad with all of the trimmings. Well done.

APL said...

Eighteen months down the road, bet she still seeing him.

Salt said...

"He previously turned down an £850,000 offer to settle the case and the judge criticised the legal costs run up by the couple of more than £657,000."

He got a 1.2m payout. She needed Mel Gibson's lawyer.

Trust said...

"Sadly I am left to conclude there is a strong financial disincentive for a wealthy woman to marry"

May she's just afraid of commitment and needs to woman-up.

Kentucky Headhunter said...

"Imagine how much Mrs. Luckwell would have squealed if she'd been forced to give up half her wealth, as many men have, instead of less than ten percent of it.

If Mrs. Luckwell's advice is true for wealthy women, it must be five times more important for wealthy men to avoid marriage."

Don't you mean 50 times?

RobJ said...

He got less than ONE percent...and she still whined about it.

Anonymous said...

The crime in all of this is he only got 2 million dollars. Should have been closer to 15 million, she did marry him afterall.

Guy is a complete tool though. a 1.4 million dollar home will have property taxes more than most mortgages. Government will seize it from him in a couple years. If he was smart he would get a 1 BR, live off the interest and spend the rest of his life bedding women.

Anonymous said...

1% of her wealth and she's crying? From the article it looks like they were together for several years and they have 3 kids together. She got off light. If there were more decisions like this or more balanced decisions (ex. he gets 10-20% of her wealth) you'd have the feminists screaming that "these unfair laws must be changed".

Trust said...

These same people were fine with Tiger Wood's ex passing on a $55 million settlement to gut him for $750 million. Granted, his adultery caused the divorce, but it was still excessive seeing as how women who cheat never have to pay (and usually get paid).

Anonymous said...

$750 million is what she asked for. Nobody knows for sure what she got but people think it was in the low 100 million range. Tiger isn't even worth 750 million. Between taxes, fees, and his lifestyle its probably in the 400-600 million range.

Trust said...

Apologies if I misunderstood. Point still the same. Adultery was supposedly a justifiable excuse to gut him, but adulterous women get paid.

mickeypavic said...

The moral of the story? Hide your assets in family trusts and you don't have to pay out 50% or more.

Anonymous said...

Marriage? What's that?

Here in British Columbia, a year ago they announced that all common-law marriages are defacto marriages after two years - meaning, that in every possible way, after two years, you are financially responsible as if married legally - including asset & debt division, child-support, and what-not else. Yes, It was always sort-of this way, but, it was acknowledged that if you didn't have a pre-signed agreement, there was not much basis for the claim of common-law marriage. Thus, why nobody tried to create common-law pre-nups. This new law says that if you DON'T have a pre-common-law agreement disclaiming marriage, you are 100% married in the eyes of the state after a period of two years.

The "pro-marriage Churchians" didn't raise nary a peep! Even though it destroyed the idea of marriage even moreso than gay marriage.

Kinda says a lot about their "save marriage" campaigns, doesn't it? They rallied like the dickens to prevent gay marriage, but when legislation comes through that LITERALLY nullifies the contract of marriage in every conceivable way... crickets chirping.

Although this legislation includes a vast expansion of government control over parenting - by extending the word "parent" to mean that we can now, legally, have five parent families (A same sex couple, a male sperm donor, a female egg donor, and a surrogate mother can all be "equal" parents of a child by law), the Churchians were deathly silent. In fact, this even goes further, since we now have legally recognized gay marriage - so same-sex (non-gay) room-mates are also beholden to the legislation: In other words, if you are a man and allow another man to room-mate with you, after two years - because of gay marriage - your room-mate can declare you common-law and come after your assets.

Not a peep from the Churchians.

Not one peep.

If Churchians won't defend marriage in the face of its complete deconstruction, why should mere putz's like me do it?

Guess who supported this legislation financially and lobby for it legally?

Yup, the lawyer's associations of BC.

Who do you think is going to benefit from these new laws the most?

The lawyers and the government.

Trust said...

@Edwin Calais said... Not a peep from the Churchians.

I understand your point, and I do think Christians are much too tolerant in the face of societal destruction, but I really do think these are apples and oranges comparisons.

We went from talking about a male divorce bandit, to how the heiress got off easy compared to when the bandit is female, to common law marriage, to government meddling in parenting, to how people who don't support gay marriage can't be supported because they are more vocal about it than other forms of family decay.

The government and society have been underming marriage for decades. No doubt. Most notably, they pay people to destroy their marriages. Part of why this isn't met with the same criticism as gay marriage is its deviation from the intent of the institution isn't as obvious. The main purpose of marriage is to raise the next generation. Everything else has been government meddling making it a financial contract or health contract, etc. etc.

Too many people support government meddling, not because they don't care about marriage and parenting, but because they support the stated intent of the meddling and do not draw the connection. They don't want to see a man walk out on his family and leave them high and dry, so they accept misandric laws which make him fulfill his duties, but do not see how this incentivizes 75% of women to divorce to stop the 2% of men that walk used to walk. They are wrong, but it's easy to be duped by stated intent than actual practice.

And with common law marriage, they intents is the same albeit on a sneakier level. It's pandering to women, which, contrary to common misconception, the church does too much of, but not as much as they get credit for.

In the case of gay marriage, that gray area doesn't exist, at least not to the extent of others. It simply will result in children that do not have a mother and a father. They may have two good fathers, or they may have two good mothers, but they will not have a mom and a dad in the home. And that is tougher to rationalize around.


Laguna Beach Fogey said...

"The "pro-marriage Churchians" didn't raise nary a peep! Even though it destroyed the idea of marriage even more so than gay marriage."

Well, of course they didn't. It's easier to yell at the crazy flamboyant homosexualists than, you know, take a closer look at the incentives driving the behaviour and choices of their own women.

VD said...

The "pro-marriage Churchians" didn't raise nary a peep! Even though it destroyed the idea of marriage even moreso than gay marriage.

I don't recall the "pro-marriage Churchians" in British Colombia doing anything about gay marriage either, for that matter. I don't think Americans care very much what Canadians do or don't do, assuming they even know in the first place.

Anonymous said...

Most wealthy men already know this, and she's just figuring it out? Welcome to equality, Victoria.

Trust said...


True. But she still concluded that this is a danger facing wealthy women. She isn't concerned when the bucks are flowing from men to women.

Anonymous said...

OT: A quote from another female scientist

"The career vs. family problem is one that has to be solved by every professional woman and her husband in their own fashion, and we had had to work it out, too. My husband, himself a research scientist, is well aware of the driving necessity to keep on doing research that is characteristic of all who have experienced its satisfactions, and he is willing to be discommoded,-up to a reasonable point. On the other hand, I have always felt that a successful marriage is impossible for a professional woman unless both she and her husband have a clear (and the same) conviction of what comes first, even though either one might have serious conflicts about this at times. I think it probable that a successful marriage can be worked out with the wife putting either career or family first, so long as everyone is clear about it. As for me, I have never had any doubts that I had to subordinate my own work to the welfare of the family, although in all candor I must admit that I have deeply resented it upon occasion. Now that the children are grown, and we are learning at first hand the delights of being grandparents, I am well satisfied. I do not mean that there are no further problems. There is always the problem when your husband is a man of great stature, of balancing your own work against the chances of maintaining or increasing his productivity, so as to be sure that in the long run you have not benefited at the expense of society."

-Anne Roe, The Making of a Scientist

Adina said...

very good this article
dragon ball online

Akulkis said...


Of course, we ALSO know that if he sacrifices his career for the family, to accomodate her career, that within 10 years, she will have no respect for him, and divorce him (usually for one of the guys she works with who is NOT sacrificing HIS career for HIS family)... and so this is good for HER family, how, exactly?

Post a Comment