To: Citizen X_Area 51
“Idaho’s murky law on the issue requires a divorce filing to grant separation, which is a key factor in splitting up assets between spouses.”
What’s murky about this? It works both ways. It sure sucks in this case, but the law is the law
6 posted on
01/22/2011 1:17:01 PM PST by
mewykwistmas
("Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge even where there is no river. ")
To: mewykwistmas
Not quite.
“Holly Lahti can still file for divorce, and contend the winnings are all hers because the couple do not live together and do not support each other, Brandt said. A divorce does not automatically produce a 50-50 split of assets.”
And this happened in 2003? The mutual domestic dispute. Ah, he’s been arrested for drug stuff he’ll likely OD with whatever money he gets. Give him some and be free woman.
10 posted on
01/22/2011 1:19:36 PM PST by
ReneeLynn
(Socialism is SO yesterday. Fascism, it's the new black. Mmm mmm mmm.)
To: mewykwistmas
The key to the story is that we're supposed to feel sorry for her because she may have to give him 95million. Boo Hoo. Had the tables been turned and he won, you know she'd be asking for her half. The law is the law. Period.
Maybe now she'll get that divorce.
37 posted on
01/22/2011 4:11:05 PM PST by
Shannon
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson