That's California law, unless there's a solid prenup but many prenups can be broken too.

I know you don't think that way, but the way you put it made me think about how people would complain if a female got left out in a divorce, which actually is a big part of the reason the laws were changed. Now many females make big money and things change!

AFAIC, if she didn't have a rock solid prenup, she deserves to lose it and should be happy she doesn't lose 1/2 of everything she has, as did several guys I know who got divorced. They didn't have millions of dollars but substantial investments in their homes, etc. And a couple I know got zapped twice to which they should have learned too! LOL

And you know too that the law gets involved because people insist they do get involved. Look out for that poor person, they won't have anything to live on, they gave up their career to be a spouse, they need to maintain the lifestyle to which they're accustomed, etc.

I get frustrated seeing Wacko Jacko's parents milking his estate. Estate law is what I think needs massive change.

I wondered about that when she left last week...I know he has a very successful business but no where near the millions she's made in films...

Cynic...i didn't think Michael had any estate left...hopefully he something set aside for his kids...

She is such a celebrity!
I hurt for her!

So sad!

I was going to echo what Cynic said.
If she were going after a successful business of her husband, would the same post be written?
Equal opportunity, women's rights, etc.

This is happening so fast! I hope we don't hear of others coming out from under the rug like in Tiger's case.

Poor thing.

"If she has the prenup she is safe."

My state was the first one to change over to Napoleonic Code. There is no such thing as a "prenup" to opt out of marriage and community property laws. One cannot make a civil agreement that supersedes a law. You cannot "opt out" of a law you don't like. The only thing a "prenup" can do is to define assets when going into a marriage so there is no argument later. It will define what is personal, like a checking account, and what is not, like a trust fund.

For instance, in my state an inheritance cannot be considered community property in a marriage. This can be defined in prenuptial papers and is 'set aside'. If such property has been converted for marital use, say an inherited home that they both live in, or a business where the income derived supports the marriage, it becomes part of marital property. In cases like this it will still take a judge and attorneys to sort it all out.

I don't know why we ALL don't keep our noses out of their business. What business is it of ours? Yes, she is sad, but so are millions of others to whom this is happening who aren't celebs. Is it money? Beauty? I've never understood why we are so interested in celebs. I'm not a snob, just uninterested and confused as to why people think celebs are more interesting than we are. I've had a huge crush on Paul McCartney for 45 years, but I don't want to know about his personal business.

I am afraid I have to agree with Sherrmann,why are people so interested in people who are in the public eye? Take for instance Kate Gosselin. I don't know what kind of a person she is and her life is none of my affair. But there are a lot of people who are willing to hang her due to things they have read. Vique.

Why wouldn't we be interested? They are people whose status is there because we are interested. And why can't we have an opionion, the two of you certainly had an opinion about our having opinons regarding the breakup and lifestyle. They wouldn't even be who they are or have any money to worry about if it wasn't for people caring about them and their lives.

Whatever it costs her, I suspect she will recoup rather quickly and all he gets is some extra money and a tatooed Ho!

I would assume that if he gets 1/2 of what she has made in the last five years she would, in turn, get 1/2 of what he's made. I realize that won't compare to what Sandra has made but hopefully it will offset it a bit.

Gosh, ruthieg, I wasn't criticizing you, and it doesn't seem that vique was either. We were asking why it is that celebs are more interesting than ordinary people are, that's all. Are you as interested in your neighbors and co-workers or any other people you don't know? Would you mind if people knew intimate facts about you?

You are certainly correct that They wouldn't even be who they are or have any money to worry about if it wasn't for people caring about them and their lives. The question is WHY are they more interesting or important to you than ordinary people are?

As an aside, most celebs hate the intrusions into their lives. I would certainly hate it - wouldn't you? - if every move I made was scrutinized? If even such a private matter as having your husband cheat on you was known all over your workplace or church, never mind the world? I would hate being thought of as a poor thing.

"I would assume that if he gets 1/2 of what she has made in the last five years she would, in turn, get 1/2 of what he's made"

The way it works is income is considered co-mingled during a marriage, so in effect yes, it would not be that he keeps everything he earned and she gives him half of what she made.

Now if these two people were smart they would have each made their name a corporation like most entertainers. That way their earning would go into a corporate holding. They could appoint reps. They could still draw a paycheck for themselves when needed.

Yes, California is a community property state & has been probably for the last 80 years. And yes, a properly drawn up pre (or post) nuptial agreement in California can override California community property laws. That's why some people pay their respective attorneys the Big Bucks for that service. And even post marriage income, etc. can be assigned by such nuptial agreement. That's why attorneys may warn clients about commingling of assets contrary to the expensive nuptial agreement that they signed before their marriage. Only support of minor children of the marriage cant be affected by the nuptial agreement. THEY cant be opted out.

I wasn't offended, just offering a reason why we have every right to be curious...and I think I answered the question that you asked...If they want private lives then they need to pick an occupation that doesn't require adoring fans...

"The question is WHY are they more interesting or important to you than ordinary people are?"

I doubt they are more important than ordinary people or people that you know or don't know in your neighborhood...but at the moment, they are the ones that have their names in all the papers...If it was my neighbor, then yes I'd be just as curious.

Why wouldn't we be interested? They are people whose status is there because we are interested.

I agree Ruthie!

I guess that's a difference between us, then. I feel that people are entitled to their privacy, whether they are celebrities or neighbors. Just because they can act well or sing or paint or have a personal trauma in their lives doesn't entitle us to the details of their lives. I can enjoy their movies or songs and not know anything about them personally. For me, gossip does nothing to enhance a performance. The performance stands on its own.

You say celebs should pick a different occupation if they don't want to give up their private lives, and then you say, If it was my neighbor, then yes I'd be just as curious. Would you really> not mind if your personal life was the gossip of the neighborhood or the magazines?

Saw an article today on the Google news site, and it reports that James had numerous and on-going sexual forays outside his marriage, that he advertised online for them, and that it was an open secret at his work that he was regularly unfaithful to Sandra when she was away. Sounds like another Tiger Woods. What a creep!

Just saw on the "Insider" that she and Jesse had a prenup and that all of the homes she owns are in her name and his are in his name.The home they were living in is in his name.They kept all their individual business interests in their own names and had seperate bank accounts.So I guess they will both come out OK.Also heard "someone close to Sandra" say that their marriage was just PR.
I have never understood why anyone,especially someone in their financial situation,would need to cheat when all they have to do is hop on a plane and go to wherever the other one happened to be at the time.I wonder if she knew all along? I feel sorry for anyone in that situation.Especially if the one being cheated on has no clue.

I heard that also tonight on the Insider. Never new what she saw in him. I wiah her the best whatever she decides.

Sandra's uncle was a member of my water aerobics class. He has now become unable to attend, but he used to tell us what a wonderful person she was/is to his family, and the gifts she used to give them.

I wish her well!

Everyone "should" be entitled to their privacy, but that's not gonna happen. When you choose being in the public eye as a career, you take the good with the bad. I adore Sandra, and actually do like Jessie, but they chose this life and what goes with it. They can't only accept the "good" magazine covers. They have to take the bad that goes with them.
Curiosity is human nature, be it your neighbors, or the rich and famous. I find that more normal than some who claims not to care about anything outside their own home.

I find that more normal than some who claims not to care about anything outside their own home.This is ridiculous. I never said anything like that. Enjoy being nosey and distorting things. Most of what you read in the tabloids is distorted anyway.

I think the reason people talk on forums like this about celebrities is because many of us have seen the t.v. show, movies or attended a concert etc. of that celebrity, so we have had the chance to form an opinion about them, right or wrong. If I were to tell you all that my manager's cousin who has 3 young children just found out her husband was cheating, some people would post to express good wishes for her in the struggles she will face. Additionally, all the people directly related to my manager's cousin (family and friends) are no doubt discussing their opinions, but that may only be a few hundred people in total.

However, when similar news about a celebrity occurs, you must multiply the discussion by millions, since more attention is obviously generated by someone whose face is familiar to millions of people. They are not any more WORTHY of attention, simply more likely to get it, because of their occupation. So if discussion is considered 'gossip' then we are all guilty of it, whether or not it is one of us discussing the breakup of a friend's marriage with one other person, or millions of us discussing the breakup of a celebrity's marriage. It's just a difference in numbers, not importance.