Post: #1

Hope she loses.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/ex-...02664.html

Quote:So you're at home in New York City watching the twins while your wife is visiting her brother in San Francisco. Six months later, you get divorced.

You're making $43,000 a year when you split, and part of that goes to child support.

A few years later, you're poking around the internet when you hop on your now ex-wife's LinkedIn page and, to your surprise, it says she's a first-round investor in Twitter, which made millionaires out of a lot of people when it went public on Nov. 7.

Huh? When did she invest in Twitter?

Ahhh, San Francisco.

Meet Stuart Strumwasser. According to the New York Post, he's suing his ex-wife, Jennifer Johnson, claiming she secretly invested between $10,000 and $50,000 in the social media giant, an investment that's now worth millions.
From The Post:

"Johnson secretly went to San Francisco to meet with her first ex-husband," Strumwasser’s Manhattan Supreme Court suit alleges.

"She also met with one or more of the founders of Twitter," according to court papers.

Johnson's first husband, Gregg Kidd, was a former colleague of Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey.

Meanwhile, Strumwasser, who lives in Carroll Gardens, "was home watching their children, and the parties were acting as a 'marital team' so Johnson could make the trip."

"Unbeknownst to Strumwasser, Johnson was holding business meetings with one or more of the creators of Twitter."

The alleged investment was never mentioned during their divorce settlement in 2007, which is about when Twitter began to gain traction. In the suit, Strumwasser, 47, claims the omission constitutes fraud, according to The Post, because the investment money should have been considered as part of their marital assets.

He claims his ex-wife's investment is now worth between $10 million and $50 million. He's suing for the repayment of $120,000 in child support and 30 percent of the Twitter shares.

Does Strumwasser have a case?

It depends on what kind of funds Johnson used to make the alleged purchase.

"The presumption is that any property acquired in the name of either party during the marriage and prior to the commencement of any proceeding to end the marriage is marital property subject to [equal] division and distribution," New York City divorce attorney Paul Rudder told Yahoo News. "However, if in the case cited the wife purchased the stock in her own name and utilized funds in her separate account and which funds were hers from before the marriage then her argument that the stock is her separate property has merit. A party claiming that an asset obtained during the marriage is separate property bears the burden of proof."

Michelle Rozen, a divorce mediator in New York City, explained that it is the responsibility of both parties to disclose to each other, as well as the court, what they have and what they owe. If Johnson failed to disclose the investment in Twitter made during her marriage to Strumwasser, she's opened herself up to potential litigation, says Rozen.

"Not declaring an asset that was accrued at the time of the marriage, leaves the owner of the asset exposed to law suits in the future," Rozen explained. "It is a very dangerous thing to do."

When contacted by The Post, Johnson reportedly said Strumwasser is "out of his mind” and called the allegations "utterly ridiculous."

"That's exactly the kind of personal attack I suffered over and over during our divorce," Strumwasser told The Post.

Post: #2

That's exactly the kind of personal attack I suffered over and over during our divorce," Strumwasser told The Post. Is this bitch for real? So she hides a potentially lucrative asset in a divorce that she decides to initiate then collects child support on top of that. So husband finds out that he was duped and now she claims she was personally attacked. Like we all know all the money a man makes in a marriage is "our money" but when she makes it it's "her money". If the shoe was on the other foot we all know she would do the same exact thing and ask for double.

Post: #3

Interesting that he's only suing for 30% of the shares. Seems to me that he should go for 50% if the funds came from their joint account.

Post: #4

yes he should definitely be trying to get 50%.

I am guessing she keeps some pretty dubious tax records, she really needs an audit

Post: #5

when women as millionaires can collect child support off men not earning 3 figures, you know america is fucked

Post: #6

well, it wasn't worth anything until just recently until the stock went public. Sure, it had some value, but couldn't be traded or sold for cash so there wasn't much to be done with it. Of course NOW he can and should put in for a change in child support payments now that she has money(and hopefully he gets a cut of it as well)

Post: #7

He should sue the bitch for emotional damages, or whatever it's called these days.

Post: #8

All of this because the bitch had to post it online. If she had just kept it to herself she would've been fine. But no, she had to get attention to show how smart she is.

Well now….

Post: #9

(11-27-2013 05:52 PM)PrimeTime32 Wrote:  That's exactly the kind of personal attack I suffered over and over during our divorce," Strumwasser told The Post. Is this bitch for real? So she hides a potentially lucrative asset in a divorce that she decides to initiate then collects child support on top of that. So husband finds out that he was duped and now she claims she was personally attacked. Like we all know all the money a man makes in a marriage is "our money" but when she makes it it's "her money". If the shoe was on the other foot we all know she would do the same exact thing and ask for double.

Yeah...this chic is deluded. She is most likely is from someplace in the midwest...... like Chicago, Denver, or Kansas City.

Entitlement is not as strong and entrenched within women in the midwest, but among those who indoctrinate themselves in it, it is twice as irrational as these women are usually twice as dumb.

Post: #10

(11-27-2013 05:52 PM)PrimeTime32 Wrote:  

(original article) Wrote:That's exactly the kind of personal attack I suffered over and over during our divorce," Strumwasser told The Post.

Is this bitch for real? So she hides a potentially lucrative asset in a divorce that she decides to initiate then collects child support on top of that. So husband finds out that he was duped and now she claims she was personally attacked. Like we all know all the money a man makes in a marriage is "our money" but when she makes it it's "her money". If the shoe was on the other foot we all know she would do the same exact thing and ask for double.

Actually, it's the husband who's pointing out the personal attacks he's suffered--not the wife.

Post: #11

All this because she had to flaunt it on linkedin. If that was me I'd quietly cash out and leave the country.

Post: #12

(11-27-2013 07:32 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  All this because she had to flaunt it on linkedin. If that was me I'd quietly cash out and leave the country.

if it were you, you wouldnt be vindictive enough to press a dude for everything possible in the first place. Mercy is something women expect but never give.

Post: #13

(11-27-2013 08:09 PM)pheonix500000 Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 07:32 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  All this because she had to flaunt it on linkedin. If that was me I'd quietly cash out and leave the country.

if it were you, you wouldnt be vindictive enough to press a dude for everything possible in the first place. Mercy is something women expect but never give.

I would secretly hide money if I was married. Maybe invest in some foreign property or something.

Honestly I'm not into smart business savvy women. I like my women in the dumb to "smart enough" range. Educated women will never look up to you like a woman should.

Post: #14

(11-27-2013 06:11 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  well, it wasn't worth anything until just recently until the stock went public. Sure, it had some value, but couldn't be traded or sold for cash so there wasn't much to be done with it. Of course NOW he can and should put in for a change in child support payments now that she has money(and hopefully he gets a cut of it as well)

Doesn't matter.

Legally this is a no-brainer and not hard at all. The Twitter pre-IPO stock was a marital asset. The husband was entitled to his share of the asset, regardless of its worth then.

Even in an anti-male family court system, he's going to get his share of the stock. This is especially true if his allegations of fraud are true.

Judges might be biased against men, but they really really really hate it when they've been lied to.

Post: #15

(11-27-2013 08:33 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 06:11 PM)master_thespian Wrote:  well, it wasn't worth anything until just recently until the stock went public. Sure, it had some value, but couldn't be traded or sold for cash so there wasn't much to be done with it. Of course NOW he can and should put in for a change in child support payments now that she has money(and hopefully he gets a cut of it as well)

Doesn't matter.

Legally this is a no-brainer and not hard at all. The Twitter pre-IPO stock was a marital asset. The husband was entitled to his share of the asset, regardless of its worth then.

Even in an anti-male family court system, he's going to get his share of the stock. This is especially true if his allegations of fraud are true.

Judges might be biased against men, but they really really really hate it when they've been lied to.

True. Marital property is property, however titled, acquired by one or both of the parties during the marriage. In some states, even property acquired after the separation, but before the divorce, can be considered marital. It would be nice if the article could specify the date of marriage and the date the stock was acquired in order to make it more clear. As I have discussed in other threads, there is also such a thing as a marital increase to non-marital property. This occurs when property is acquired prior to the marriage, but due to a marital effort on the part of one or both parties, there is an increase in the property. In that case, the non-asset spouse is entitled to his or her share of the marital portion of the non-marital property, whatever that may be.

Post: #16

I guess a husband is a good investment for a woman in most cases. Not counting this one of course.

Post: #17

(11-27-2013 09:08 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I guess a husband is a good investment for a woman in most cases. Not counting this one of course.

It's a wonder that anyone ever even bothers being a prostitute.

Post: #18

There will probably be justice in this case, now that it has national attention and pretty much nobody in their right mind could back the woman's hiding of the assets.

Meanwhile, the assraping of men continues in every other divorce case, every other family courtroom out of the public eye.

Post: #19

(11-27-2013 10:50 PM)Suits Wrote:  

(11-27-2013 09:08 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  I guess a husband is a good investment for a woman in most cases. Not counting this one of course.

It's a wonder that anyone ever even bothers being a prostitute.

Hookers have a better profit margin.

Post: #20

(11-27-2013 06:08 PM)bojangles Wrote:  when women as millionaires can collect child support off men not earning 3 figures, you know america is fucked

Well you read stuff like this and makes you wonder about this place but let me tell you the reality. Most these dudes are fucking idiots and the girls are calculating cunts. Have you had one outsmart you recently? I haven't and can't remember it ever happening.

I can tell you no way in hell would I ever lose this case. Also, win some child support and alimony as well.