Friday, December 04, 2009

Markets in everything: Stepford Wife edition

Mrs. Angus and I had been debating whether Tiger's wife would leave him or stand by her man. Turns out she is planning to lease herself to him:

Elin and Tiger Woods had a prenuptial agreement, as expected. The couple is undergoing marital counseling, as you'd also expect. And now The Daily Beast is reporting that Elin Woods is renegotiating that prenup to get an immediate $5 million payout from her husband and as much as $55 million more to stay with him for two more years.

The initial prenup was worth $20 million after 10 years of marriage. However, the Chicago Sun-Times' Bill Zwecker has reported that Elin Woods will receive an immediate payment "into an account she alone controls," and that the 10-year timeframe -- which began when they married in 2004 -- has been shortened and the value increased "substantially."

The Daily Beast quotes "a lawyer familiar with the couple's negotiations" in reporting that the term of the prenup has been shortened to seven years, and that a series of staggered payments could increase the total value to $75 million.

But apparently there's also a behavioral component to all this: Elin Woods must "be a dutiful wife in showing up with him at social events and in public as if they were still the perfect couple, and sign a nondisclosure form that will prevent her from ever telling her story."

YIKES!

This pretty much negates any of the sympathy I had for Mrs. Woods, but I am surprised (guess I am naive) that Tiger's reaction to this situation is to just try to buy his way out of it.

19 comments:

zbicyclist said...

I don't know that it should negate sympathy. I would imagine that at such times it can be difficult to find an expressive language between two people, the old language having departed. So maybe the only way they can meaningfully communicate is by making monetary demands and concessions.

Perhaps, over time, true love could return -- or at least provide a decent childrearing environment.

But I speak out of ignorance, and do not plan any field work to increase my expertise in these situations.

Anonymous said...

for some reason, the coase theorem comes to mind

TomB said...

It feels too much like she is asking for money to stay with him. I can see the $5M payment upfront - if he acts up again she should be able to leave the house, get an apt, maintain her lifestyle while they work things out. I can even see putting in a bad boy clause: if he has another affair, the 10 year period is waived. But increasing the divorce payout and shortening the minimum marriage length seems like she is setting up to leave him.

Anonymous said...

It's probably wise not to take that story at face value. It seems poorly and vaguely sourced.

King said...

He's already shopped for a Kobe special. We're just negotiating price.

luispedro said...

I like the old-fashioned feel to it all, marriage as a pure contract, like a good Brontë novel.

Daniel said...

If the source of the story was my lawyer, I would fire his/her arse...

Anonymous said...

If this is marriage, I'll go ahead and circumvent the whole courting period and order me a Swedish bride.

Douglas Knight said...

I agree with TomB that it looks like she will leave. Thus it looks like a lot of money just to distance the departure from the current event (and not tell a story).

Douglas Knight said...

Actually, if the 75 million is doled out at 5 million for each year she doesn't tell, that makes a lot of sense. (My first reading was 5 million for signing a contract now and 75 million for staying a year, which seems crazy.)

Anonymous said...

I'm not an expert in this area of the law, but two things come to mind.

1) I doubt the source is legit. If any lawyer or legal staff at a firm leaked this type of info, they would be in some serious legal jeopardy. That's not to say it never happens, but its unusual for people at this level.

2) The pre-nup they reported on looks suspicious. They can be overturned by the courts for reasons such as being found "unconscionable" or so unfair as to be inequitable. My guess is he is trying to avoid a court battle if the pre-nup actually says she gets nothing before 10 years. The courts, and the press, would not be sympathetic.

I would guess at this point Tiger is more concerned with staying together, and if they don't, then custody and domicile. If she leaves him and takes the kids to Sweden, then he will need to deal with the Swedish courts regarding visitation rights. Not nearly as fun as playing golf.

br said...

What the Hell is Tiger thinking? He needs to get out before she pulls an OJ on his ass. Robin Givens at least had the sense to leave Tyson after a few incidents.

Ken R. said...

I'm puzzled by something fairly fundamental. Can a prenup forego the wife's interest in assets/wealth accumulated AFTER the wedding? It seems to me that the prenup should only pertain to her interest in what he brought to the marriage, and that what was earned during the marriage should be half hers.

Howard Martin said...

If this report has a basis in fact, it sounds like a post-nup to me.

JolietJake said...

The magnitude of the figures reported in that story should have set off alarm bells that it couldn't possibly be true/accurate.

Given the egregious/flagrant adultery on display by Mr. Woods, and given that he has generated over $1 billion in earnings, do you think there is ANY chance whatsoever that Mrs. Woods would be settling for figures in the amounts of $5mm, $20mm, or even $75mm?

Come on. Don't be naive. These are tiny figures for the situation at hand, tiny enough that you should have admitted the likelihood that the story is off.

Instead you chose to give it a label of "barbie bites man".

On what planet does it make sense to use the label "barbie bites man" to describe a woman who stayed at home, raising 2 kids, remaining faithful to her wedding vows while her husband philanders with a plethora of women?

I don't know you at all sir, but you're quite a piece of work, Mr. Angus.

At the very least, this ("barbie bites man") was a gross lapse of judgement on your part.

volcker said...

He is way over paying, for that old broad.

--Ed

buy nintendo dsi r4 said...

Well if we have learned nothing else from this posting, we have at least established that sparkleby is a man, and so sparkleby I would like to repeat my offer to act as second should you decide to challenge Mr Eschenbach to a duel to the death in order to establish once and for all that the Darwin station adjustments were valid.

Joliet said...

Back in December I posted a comment that pointed out that your post was totally out of line, and that the fact that the rumored dollar amounts were so low should have tipped you off that your "facts" were anything but. Now we hear that the divorce has been settled. For $500 million. Not $5, not $50, not $75.

Gee, were you just a little quick to let your inner miscyognist run wild on the basis of patently ridiculous rumors?

What a sad person you must be.

You haven't even had the class to apologize for making a world-class fool of yourself.

Generic Viagra said...

Greetings Angus and readers!

I just dropped by because I have found this column pretty interesting, due to its concerning content and information. However, Although I have done some research related to this important matter, It has been difficult for me to get bull's eye. Now I have, it is a must for me to congratulate you for this amazing and beautiful masterpiece of blog. I don't mean to mess around, in fact, I am as respectful as I can.

Regards