"To have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, until death do us part" etc etc Amen .... these are the hopeful vows that many couples make at weddings.
 |
| A Bad Divorce Can Be Ruinous |
Sadly we are all too aware that this state of bliss often lasts only a small period of time .........However an American couple are making the news at the moment, because they are taking the marital split to new levels, with the man, Dr Richard Batista demanding the return of a kidney (or a monetary equivalent of $1.5m), that he donated to his soon to be ex-wife Dawnell, in better times.
He said he had not only "given his heart to his wife", Dawnell, but also "donated his kidney to save her life" and that therefore the value of this 'gift' should be included in any final settlement. Her divorce lawyers say a donated organ is not a marital asset to be divided.
The issue is due to be placed before a judge this week ...... we watch with some interest.
Update:
Ah well, the "Judge rejected " the good Doctors bid for his kidney back.
In a 10-page decision, the Nassau County Supreme Court rejected the doctor’s request that it should consider his donated kidney as an item of property to be valued in the divorce suit, according to Dawnell Batista’s lawyer, Douglas Rothkopf.
The court ruling said that “marital property” covers a lot of things, but human tissues or organs aren’t any of them. It also said that not only was Richard Batista’s attempt to extort money from his wife for the kidney he donated legally unsound, but it could expose him to criminal prosecution.
The
rejection was on the grounds that it would violate public policy. "At
its core, the defendant's claim inappropriately equates human organs
with commodities," Suffolk County Special Referee Jeffrey Grob declared
in a 10-page ruling.
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.