Angry divorcée refuses $974M check from billionaire oil tycoon
Angry divorce refuses $974M check from billionaire oil tycoon
Now thats rich!
A jaw-dropping photo reveals the handwritten $974.8 million divorce settlement check rejected as too skimpy by the ex-wife of a billionaire oil tycoon.
Sue Ann Arnall, 56, scoffed at the jackpot-size payout from former hubby Harold Hamm CEO of the energy company Continental Resources demanding more money because he was allowed to keep the bulk of his $13.5billion fortune.
The check, penned in bubbly handwriting, was made out for a mind-numbing $974,790,317.77 on Monday. The couple was married for 26 years.
The sky-high sum was delivered to Arnalls legal team on Tuesday, but was promptly turned away, according to Hamms lawyer, Michael Burrage. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/01/07/angry-divorcee-refuses-74m-check-from-billionaire-oil-tycoon/?intcmp=latestnews
Ms. Arnall, through her counsel, stated that they were rejecting the ... payment because Ms. Arnall did not want to risk the dismissal of her appeal by acceptance of the benefits, Burrage said in a statement on Tuesday.
Arnall plans to appeal a November divorce court ruling that granted her $995million, along with other assets worth tens of millions more, such as a California ranch and an Oklahoma home, her legal team said at the time
Send it to me, I won't reject it!!
Da beatch just wants revenge ...
Yes she does...I certainly wouldn't turn it down!!
I expect her lawyer was disappointed by her decision ...
I doubt it... half of 13 B is a lot more than ~1B... and what do high price divorce lawyers get? 10%? more?
I think they are considered residents of Oklahoma... OK divorce law on equitable distribution is:
I heard this guy had the company prior to marriage, so he may get more than half... but 26 years of marriage is a lot of joint equity to split when you're worth is 13.5B.... just saying
About OK laws
I cant's fault your arithmetic but I can fault your legal strategy and hers . She is going to find her demands strongly contested . He was being quite generous . Now his lawyer is going to be richly rewarded for protecting his interests .
I'm thinkin' he did all the acquiring after marriage ...
I'm thinking you'd be mistaken...
She was an economist and a lawyer who worked for the company as an executive.
link
So ... she was an employee who was paid a salary . Bottom line she was already compensated for her time . Unless she had a major part in the risk taking part of the venture then she is not entitled to the capital gains from the venture .
Reread my above comment ... many times if necessary .
The last sentence explains the difference :
Taking capital risks which can result in losses entitles one to the high rewards if the venture pays off .
If she doesn't want it , I'll take it off her hands!!
I don't blame her!
True...but at least she'll never have to worry about money
I agree!!