Wife of NBA great Dwight Howard files for divorce after 6 months. WANTS HALF OF EVERYTHING

T. A. Gardner said:
So, you're upset that I mock you for being poorly educated hum? Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Click to expand...
you need to not speak when you show how stupid you are by saying Mortgage Brokers and guys in the Finance Office at car dealerships can entirely make up fraudulent loan docs with fake jobs and income and submit them to as many banks as they want for loans and even if caught they cannot be charged and the gov't can do nothing as long as the loans are not funded and do not default.

You saying that is how the law works makes you amongst the dumbest poster on this forum and that is saying something.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Depends on what state she filed in. Cali and most blue states she could get half just because the state hates men.
Click to expand...
It is in the original story, she filed in Georgia.

California would try to give her half the joint assets bought during the marriage. That marriage only lasted for 6 months, so that would not be half of all the assets he owns. He owned things before the marriage. And he has probably kept separate assets during the marriage.
 
Text Drivers are Killers said:
Child support is NOT fine.
Click to expand...
So women should not be allowed to get a no fault divorce, but men should not have to pay child support?

There is a total collapse in family values, on the right. They no longer believe in supporting a family.

I become old school Jewish at odd times, and this is one of them. The single most important thing in a family is supporting the children. Walking away from that is the actions of a crazy person. It should be completely unacceptable in society.
 
There are reports that Dwight has been cashing in, in Taiwan and has made as much as $160M so far in 2025.

So, if true that is what she would mainly be looking for half of (normalized to 6 months) and might have a good case to get.
 
I am a believer that substantial reform will come to these divorce laws, especially in blue States, for divorcing couples without kids and the amount of lump sum and alimony the lesser income spouse can get.

This model was created by a patriarchal system (mostly rightly due to mens abuse) to try and provide some security and wealth to woman who historically could be left penniless and have the children taken away because she had no means (income) to provide a home. The man could be cheating, leave her penniless and take the kids, to his new home. Obviously that had to change.

And i would argue it did go too far in many ways.

Now however things are changing as many women are becoming the primary bread winners and trends in University graduation for advanced degrees show that will only skyrocket.

I already know of a few instances of it being the men getting a lump sum and alimony from a high powered executive wife, even when they had no kids.

Society does not look at the favorably generally and instead those men tend to get a lot of disdain. The loser, sits around all day playing video games on his ex wifes salary, is a very common view of that man.

It is again more likely to be seen as men taking advantage of women and that is what I think, will begin to drive the reform and move this to more of a balanced area in terms of lump sum and alimony.
 
Walt said:
So you think Dwight Howard should be forced to be married to his wife, and support her for the rest of her life?
Click to expand...
unless she is physically abusing him, or he is physically abusing her, then yes. they made a decision to get married. they should have thought about that before making the decision
 
QP! said:
I have friends where she is an Executive Vice President for a top insurance company and she passed on being considered for CEO two years ago. She makes over 250K per year with bonus. Her husband is grade school teacher.

When they had their one child (she was not able to conceive a second due to health issues) she stayed home for the first 6 months and he then took leave and stayed home for the next twelve months.

They are a very successful nuclear family.

What does your view of 'gender roles' have to do with them?
Click to expand...
the exception does not make the rule
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the exception does not make the rule
Click to expand...
increasingly less the exception and the trend is moving fast.

Women are graduating at 60/40 rate to men from top job degrees in University and that is growing and not slowing.

So what will you say when 'men' are 'not equal' in the relationship?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
unless she is physically abusing him, or he is physically abusing her, then yes. they made a decision to get married. they should have thought about that before making the decision
Click to expand...
Why?

I understand that is your view for you but why do you think you should be able to impose that on other?

If they can 'make a decision to get married', why can they also not 'make a decision to get divorced'?


Marriage is simply a contract and you see no contract in history that cannot be cancelled if all the parties who are signatories to it ALL AGREE to cancel it. Even irrevocable trusts can be cancelled if the one who initiated along with the parties all named agree to cancel it.
 
Walt said:
So women should not be allowed to get a no fault divorce, but men should not have to pay child support?
Click to expand...

For children that are not their own?


Walt said:
There is a total collapse in family values, on the right. They no longer believe in supporting a family.
Click to expand...

How are children from prior encounters brought into a 6 month marriage a "family?"

Nuttier than squirrel shit....

Walt said:
I become old school Jewish at odd times, and this is one of them. The single most important thing in a family is supporting the children. Walking away from that is the actions of a crazy person. It should be completely unacceptable in society.
Click to expand...

Then why don't you pay child support for her brood?

Or here is a REALLY wild idea, the actual biological fathers pay the child support?
 
SmarterthanYou said:
unless she is physically abusing him, or he is physically abusing her, then yes. they made a decision to get married. they should have thought about that before making the decision
Click to expand...
So rather than get some of his stuff that he made for 6 months, you want him to be forced to share all his stuff with her for life?
 
QP! said:
Why?

I understand that is your view for you but why do you think you should be able to impose that on other?

If they can 'make a decision to get married', why can they also not 'make a decision to get divorced'?


Marriage is simply a contract and you see no contract in history that cannot be cancelled if all the parties who are signatories to it ALL AGREE to cancel it. Even irrevocable trusts can be cancelled if the one who initiated along with the parties all named agree to cancel it.
Click to expand...
Did both parties agree to the divorce? This is about the assets not whether they can divorce or not.
 
Yakuda said:
Did both parties agree to the divorce? This is about the assets not whether they can divorce or not.
Click to expand...

They do not have to with this kind of contract. I was pointing out that EVEN irrevocable trust contracts can be broken to say ALL contracts can be broken.

A marriage contract only needs one person to opt out for it to be cancelled like 99% of contracts, at which point the other can sue if they feel some obligation was not met.


That is how the system deliberately works.

So again, why should a marriage contract be different than any other?
 
QP! said:
They do not have to with this kind of contract. I was pointing out that EVEN irrevocable trust contracts can be broken to say ALL contracts can be broken.

A marriage contract only needs one person to opt out for it to be cancelled like 99% of contracts, at which point the other can sue if they feel some obligation was not met.


That is how the system deliberately works.

So again, why should a marriage contract be different than any other?
Click to expand...
They aren't broken it all agree to it. They are dissolved

This is about should the gold digging whore get a cent.
 
Yakuda said:
They aren't broken it all agree to it. They are dissolved

This is about should the gold digging whore get a cent.
Click to expand...
Right .

Again my point, TO THE GUY I REPLIED TO, who was saying the contract should not be able to be broken, is that there is no contract that cannot be broken and even the most strict ones, Irrevocable Trust can be broken or dissolved. NO need to nitpik the words as they cover the same ground. It means terms agreed to that will not be met, whether broken or dissolved. One is consensual to all parties the other is not but same result.

I was not commented on that latter part in my reply to him so you can discuss that with someone who is.

I will continue to talk to him about this ALSO about which is his view on contracts and whether they can or should be broken or not.
 
QP! said:
Right .

Again my point, TO THE GUY I REPLIED TO, who was saying the contract should not be able to be broken, is that there is no contract that cannot be broken and even the most strict ones, Irrevocable Trust can be broken or dissolved. NO need to nitpik the words as they cover the same ground. It means terms agreed to that will not be met, whether broken or dissolved. One is consensual to all parties the other is not but same result.

I was not commented on that latter part in my reply to him so you can discuss that with someone who is.

I will continue to talk to him about this ALSO about which is his view on contracts and whether they can or should be broken or not.
Click to expand...
No it's not the same result. If a contract is broken then then one party can sue the other for non-performance. If it's dissolved there is no possibility of suing. Dissolving is just another contract agreeing to part ways.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top