^Thissurely, at most, she should have been entitled to 50% of what he made in the 4 years they were married.
(
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:30,
archived)
excluding any back royalties
barryheadwound Mul-ti-pass? Multipass!,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:31,
archived)
I would have thought soI don't think we know the whole story though and probably never will.
(
Flowerpot No longer has the vapours thanks to DTH,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:32,
archived)
yesI fail to understand why 4 years of marriage entitles her to 31 million plus 75,000 a year for the upkeep of the child. It makes no sense whatsoever.
(
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Thu 20 Mar 2008, 14:45,
archived)