Wealthy CEO torments ex-wife (Staples founder’s ex-wife: I’ll be out on the street)

Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, ex-wife of Staples founder, sits in her $5,200 a month, 14th-floor, concierge-at-the-door, elegantly furnished Back Bay apartment and tells you she’s broke. She can’t work. She can’t afford a car, her medications, her rent, even the family springer spaniel, J.J., who she just gave away.

She produces doctors notes detailing medical woes: possible lupus, bouts of pneumonia requiring hospitalizations, a history of cancer, petit mal seizures, plus recommendations for thrice weekly psychotherapy and psychiatry. She says her insurance won’t cover mental health care.

“I’m going to be out on the street,” says Sullivan Stemberg, a tiny, 50-ish woman who alternates between an overanxious recitation of worries, and tears. “I’ve had a change of circumstances.”

"If its damaging enough, it would deal a fatal blow to a challenger."

As it would an incumbent. But your alarmism is fatalistic in the extreme since this is nothing new and in fact has been around for years and years. My understanding is Romney was called as a witness in the business end of the trial i.e. the value of the stock included in the settlement and he was in no way (as some have insinuated) involved with the wife in any sort of relationship. Had that been the case it would have been brought out long, long before this in fact years ago when it was a story in the 1980's. In a divorce involving relatively big money like this one there is always a dispute as to the actual value of the assets to be divided. If the award to the wife was % million and it was to be in the form of stock and cash, etc it would play to the benefit of the husband to value the per share price high so he would have to turn loose less shares to make up the amount he had to give his ex. It appears Romney's testimony involved what the actual value of the stock was which in the end was an opinion all be it an informed one given Romney's area of expertise. In the end what ever gets released if anything will be testimony and all of that is open to interpretation and people are known to lie and lie badly in emotionally heated cases such as a divorce. Alred is known to a great many people across the country and her modus operandi is obvious and my feeling is way more than enough people will see this as exactly what it is, a blatant attempt to influence a national election for a Democrat.

I don’t believe there are taxes paid on cash settlements in a divorce. My daughter was divoced a few years ago and as part of the settlement she received $1,250,000 in cash plus alimony and child support. Alimoney and child support are taxable while the cash settlement was not either at the Federal or State level.

Her lawyer got paid about $125,000 based on his billing rate of $650 per hour.

She had the money in hand shortly after the 1987 divorce and had p*ssed all of it away by 1994 in the manner described. A woman of her described talents should be earning at least $50K annually in a market like Massachusetts. That leaves only a 5% return. FWIW, I'm still doing better than 5% on a large and common mortgage backed mutual fund from Franklin Templeton with only a $2K investment. It was doing nearly 10% in 1994.

This isn't some hot, high risk fund. It is a vanilla low risk fund which has been around for ages.

Perhaps, but there are other things besides pension funds that were, for millions to invest, advertising those rates of return. Besides, my main point was she could have invested it and probably found an interest rate that easily gave her enough to live off of without having to touch principal. We’re getting off track from the main point.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.