Russell Crowe splits from wife

Crowe as Noah? Bizarre!

i lost interest in crowe when i found out he opened a pub to showcase his hollywood career. what an ego!

rickyvee, he probably did that due to the interest and pride of his fans in Australia. Show me a big star who doesn't have ego--Sheesh. Living here in SoCal and as a former consultant to many resorts in Palm Springs, I can tell you Crowe has a very decent reputation with fans compared to most movie and music stars. He'll recoup the alimony with likely just one film.

Sad.

Man I wish I cud win the lottery like that!

Crowe's going to make a great Noah!

There is a glue available in the super market for $ 2. Try to fix it with. Some one could have presented it at their marriage. Who is the next celebaaaarty on the divorce line....

Who else is vehemently against this idea that you have to keep somebody in the lifestyle they've grown accustomed to?

He earned the money. Maybe she put her career on hold to take care of the kids and she should be remunerated. Why not give her a million dollars? Anybody who's not foolish with money could live off that for the rest of their lives.

Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the argument, but if I were her I would not try to get money that wasn't mine.

Quote: "Rumors that their relationship was in trouble surfaced in June this year when photos appeared showing Spencer on a night out with her partner from television show “Dancing With The Stars,” Damian Whitewood. The pictures reportedly showed Spencer and Whitewood with their arms wrapped around each other in Sydney."

So why should she get a penny more than their pre-nuptial agreement. In fact why should she get a penny?

if I were her I would not try to get money that wasn't mine.

I guess you're not familiar with the concept of 'with all my worldly goods I thee endow'. When a couple marry, what's his is hers and what's hers is his. If they sadly find that they cannot continue to be married, then the split should be straight down the middle, no ifs and buts, no whys nor wherefores.

If the couple have earned 150 million during the marriage and one ex-partner walks away with only 25 million, someone has got their maths wrong. It should be a straight 75-75 each.

Cleo, so either partner can play around all they like?

nanda - what on earth has playing around got to do with money?

I take it you think it's relevant....so if Crowe was seen in the arms of some female co-worker or whatever, the missus should get the lion's share of the worldly goods? Or do things work differently for the goose than for the gander?

No, that's what I mean. She should be liable to a lot more if he was the one hugging someone in public. She might have a leg to stand on then...

In this case she is breaking their marriage up so I don't see why she might be claiming big bucks support.

Are you suggesting 50-50 always and regardless?

In this case she is breaking their marriage up

Are you sure? Whitewood has denied any involvement; Crowe and Spencer have been living apart for the past 12 months or so while he was busy making one film after another and leaving his family to fend for themselves; the split is said to be amicable. The showbiz press is speculating that it was his work schedule that cause the marriage to break down. From what we know, I don't think we can say that 'she is breaking their marriage up'.

But yes, I would say money and emotion should be kept strictly separate. Make provision for the kids, split the rest of the worldly goods down the middle, and then start haggling over who owes who how much if anything in damages.

cracaphat and cleo:

Just because she's legally entitled to it, doesn't make it right, does it? You see, I'm a moral person and I know that if my wife earned that kind of money, I would not try to profit off my failed marriage. I would ask for the money that I could have been earning while we were married, but not for that person to have to supply me with a movie star lifestyle for all NONE of the movies I acted in.

I imagine you're both women and likely not the main breadwinners of your respective households, thus this seems fair to you. It is not. And neither of you have provided me with a rationale for the law being what it is, just a reassurance that it is the law.

It is immoral for her to take more than she needs. But dollar dollar bill ya'll, I guess...

chooch - I don't give a toss for the legality of it. When you marry, you join yourself 100% to the other person; their successes are your successes, their failures are their failures, and vice versa. It's ridiculous to talk in terms of 'my money' and 'his money'. If you're keeping tabs of His'n'Hers, you're more likely to end up with a failed marriage, as far as I can see.

If they stay married, they both share the family wealth and have a movie-star lifestyle; why should either one lose out more than the other when the marriage fails?

Every penny I earned since marrying has gone into the family pot, not to mention the 'non-working' hours spent raising kids, cooking, cleaning and even growing some of the food we eat; since I put in 100%, if my marriage should fail (no signs of that, thankfully) I would expect a straight split of our joint property, not merely 'no more than I need'.

cleo:

That's great you put all your money into the pot, it really is. But it is likely less money than what your husband puts in, isn't it? It is easy to say 50/50 when you are not the main breadwinner. It is even easier to say it when you're looking to get paid $2.5M per year of being a housewife.

Accumulating capital because you are of some benefit to outside society is different than being the person who does domestic duties. The person who does domestic duties benefits the home that they share, and does not benefit the outside world in any meaningful way. A child could be taken care of at a daycare for $1500 dollars a month, cooked for by a live-in chef, while a gardener tended to the garden. All of this would be a pittance compared to the roughly $190,000 per month that people apparently think this woman deserves. If she had it your way, it would be $625,000 per month for taking care of two kids, doing housework, and whatever else NOBODY in the world gets paid for that kind of work.

My wife makes double the money I do and I demand to pay for my share of things. We have our money, her money, and my money. We have our things, her things, and my things. If we divorced, the kids deserve more of her money than of mine, but I am capable of making my own living. She has put in more time at work and she deserves to have more money. While I am with her, her money is a safety net for me, but if we divorce, it is no longer mine. I would get half of the house we're paying for, but I'm a grown adult and having been her husband is not a job I deserve remuneration for.

But that comes down to morals, as I said.

it is likely less money than what your husband puts in, isn't it? It is easy to say 50/50 when you are not the main breadwinner

The amount in absolute terms is irrelevant. If putting more money into the relationship means taking more money out, by that token I get total and exclusive custody of the kids (or would if they hadn't already flown the nest), 100% possession of the house I kept (reasonably) clean plus the garden I tended...how is he going to give me back the veggies I grew and he ate? How do I give him back the dirt I washed off his clothes? See, the argument becomes ridiculous.

The person who does domestic duties benefits the home that they share, and does not benefit the outside world in any meaningful way

What happens in the outside world has no bearing on what happens inside the marital home. No one is suggesting that the outside world should compensate either party in a divorce.

A child could be taken care of at a daycare for $1500 dollars a month, cooked for by a live-in chef, while a gardener tended to the garden.

And if you boil everything down to cash equivalents, you fall in to the trap of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing....

roughly $190,000 per month that people apparently think this woman deserves. If she had it your way, it would be $625,000 per month for taking care of two kids, doing housework, and whatever else NOBODY in the world gets paid for that kind of work.

I see you still don't get it. We aren't talking about money that she 'deserves' or that she gets paid for 'taking care of two kids, doing housework'. If you want to go down that path, we could discuss whether Crowe's acting skills make him 'deserving' of $150million; I have my doubts, but it doesn't matter. He got paid what was agreed on for doing what he does. That's fine. Good for him. In the exact same way, as one half of a married couple, she should be looking at half of the assets of the marriage.

Looks like different folk have different ideas of what's moral.

Just noticed a fatal bloomer in my 03:14PM post.

their successes are your successes, their failures are their failures should of course be their successes are your successes, their failures are your failures

I apologise profusely whilst banging my head upon the floor.