Elin Nordegren claims Victim Status

Even in Florida, adultery has a bearing on child custody.
And if the adulterer is frittering common property, the court can raise the amount appropriated.
A marriage is more than a legal contract Bill. Know what I mean?

Florida is a "no fault" divorce state. This means that either party may seek a divorce without a showing of cause. The spouse seeking a divorce simply needs to state that the marriage is "irretrievably broken". Who broke it or played the greater role in breaking it is not relevant. The "irretrievably broken" standard relieves the court of the complicated duty of deciding who is at fault, and the parties to the marriage are spared a very contentious court battle.

Nevertheless, the adulterous conduct of one spouse can impact other important issues raised in a divorce. In child custody battles, for instance, a court considers the "moral fitness" of a parent seeking custody. This "moral fitness" question opens the door for an introduction of the parent's adulterous behavior. According to the courts, the critical question is whether the adultery had or is reasonably likely to have an adverse impact on the child. Accordingly, adultery, while not in and of itself a bar to custody, requires an evaluation of the adulterer's conduct and the surrounding circumstances to determine the impact on the child.

The division of marital property and liabilities is another issue that may be impacted by adultery. Florida is an equitable distribution state so there is a presumption that the marital assets and liabilities should be evenly divided. This presumption of an even distribution may, however, be overcome by proof that one spouse has intentionally dissipated or wasted marital assets. Gifts, trips, apartment rent, car payments, and dinners for one's "friend" are all a waste of marital assets. The court may reduce the adulterer's share of martial assets to compensate a spouse for this waste of assets.

Under Florida Statutes adultery is specifically listed as a factor to be considered in determining the amount of alimony awarded, but courts have struggled to reconcile the consideration of adultery with the "no fault" concept. The bottom line is that the amount of alimony awarded a spouse is only increased if the adulterous conduct increases the spouse's monetary needs. But, remember judges are only human and evidence of adultery could conceivably color the judge's view of the parties.

Accordingly, adultery, while not in and of itself a bar to custody requires an evaluation of the adulterer's conduct and the surrounding circumstances to determine the impact on the child.

You're absolutely wrong Bill. And it doesn't take a lawyer to figure that out.

Oh second note, I had found out the hard way that the only correct way of dealing with a woman in a divorce situation is to play hardball.

Being nice is a good way to get screw and the only way I could deal with my ex-wife was just to allow my home to go into foreclosed. This was done on the advice of a drinking buddy lawyer and against the advice of the lawyer I was paying good money to.

The drinking part may explain the incoherant posts that are displayed most times. The odd coherent spasm is seen far less frequently.

Sadly, it seem that he was a nice guy to the tone of 70 millions and it gain him nothings for being so.

No one in their right mind should listen to your advice on "dealing with a woman". I suspect that Tiger, with all his failings, might have more character and basic decency than you do. He probably knew this woman didn't need to be screwed with the divorce settlement, he had already hurt her enough. And, if he wants to have a good relationship with his children, don't you think he needs to stay on the best possible terms with their mother?

LOL....Thirty millions plus millions more in child support payments is being screw in your opinion!!!!!!!!!

Given Tiger's rather outrageous womanizing, there was little reason for Elin to settle for $30 million. "He who dances must pay the piper," and Tiger did enough dancing to warrant a big payout to Elin. Even $100 million is only 1/5 or 1/6 of Tiger's net worth. And he's used to paying large sums to women--he was paying big bucks to his girlfriends to keep their mouths shut. He reportedly paid about $10 million to Rachel Uchitel.

The drinking part may explain the incoherant posts that are displayed most times.

there's no need to attack Bill in this manner. He's always had difficulty writing and I don't think it's due to alcohol

Given Tiger's rather outrageous womanizing, there was little reason for Elin to settle for $30 million. "He who dances must pay the piper," and Tiger did enough dancing to warrant a big payout to Elin. Even $100 million is only 1/5 or 1/6 of Tiger's net worth. And he's used to paying large sums to women--he was paying big bucks to his girlfriends to keep their mouths shut. He reportedly paid about $10 million to Rachel Uchitel

West Palm Beach divorce-law guru Odette Bendeck, who had nothing to do with Tiger's divorce but handles plenty big-money splits, explained what's behind it all.
"What I believe is happening," Bendeck said, "is that the settlement calls for deferred payments to the ex-wife. I'm pretty sure there's a promissory note behind the mortgage, and the mortgage is just to secure the note. They did it like this for privacy."
Elin probably got some dough up front, Bendeck said, but she'll have to wait five years to get it all.
"I have a feeling this (the $54 million) is just a piece of the entire package."
Speculation has placed the value of the divorce, after six years of wedded bliss, between $100 million and $500 million. There is, however, no way to know for sure, Bendeck said.
"The prenup they signed could have set a percentage of Tiger's earnings during the marriage as settlement," she said. "What looked reasonable then can seem insane at the time of the divorce."
Just goes to show how tenuous this being rich business is. Woods may be worth $900 million total, or whatever. But most of that's represented by real estate and other holdings. Sobering to reflect on the fact that if his game really hits the skids, he might end up losing his main house to his ex.

YOUR opinion, not firefly's, duh. What exactly are you trying to say here?

She have zero moral high ground to stand on as a result of not honoring her freely enter into agreement.

Many would consider such an arrangement as not qualifying as a marriage in the strict sense of the term.

Quote:

The drinking part may explain the incoherant posts that are displayed most times.

there's no need to attack Bill in this manner. He's always had difficulty writing and I don't think it's due to alcohol