He wants his kidney back!

OK... if you guys had sirius/howard stern you'd know the whole story. The guy is a client of Dominic Barber... a high-power NY attorney... basically, the situation (as stated by DB) is that this guy gave his kidney to what he thought was a loving, devoted wife... and she was supposedly having an affair during this time of "The Donation"...

Long story short... she was seeing some dude... and now wants a divorce and the usual 50%... and all this guy is saying is that SOMETHING should be factored in... considering his "huge gift"... so maybe she should get 30% or something... considering he's already given her something worth millions... so to speak.

I think the guy's got a reasonable argument... that maybe they should reach a settlement... sure... but this should count for something.

Hey... I'm just saying... if you don't know the whole story (as presented)... there's a little more to it.

He's not trying to get something out of her... but he wants what HE has to pay... to be adjusted from the norm... considering what he's already given... to somebody who wasn't what she seemed to be.

I think I could present a really logical analogy to anybody here.... that would make him sound a lot less "dicky"... and more "hey why should I pay the usual 50% outside of this... when my wife was already using me?"
 
I'm so glad I went down to Tijuana Mexico to buy my kidney. Paid $385 bucks for it and no headaches.
 
Michael Anthony Horrigan said:
Sure, but your buddy who drove you woke up in a bathtub filled with ice and a pain in his side. :)
Click to expand...

A friend of mine also scored a pretty decent deal on his new liver.

Hey bro, I see your from ottawa. Kansas? I live in KC which isn't cheap driving down to Mexico and back but the coolers doubled as beverage chillers so I guess it wasn't too bad.
 
ChipG said:
A friend of mine also scored a pretty decent deal on his new liver.

Hey bro, I see your from ottawa. Kansas? I live in KC which isn't cheap driving down to Mexico and back but the coolers doubled as beverage chillers so I guess it wasn't too bad.
Click to expand...
LOL! :grin:
Ottawa, Ontario.
Canada
 
I agree with both Mattin, and the person who said give him his kidney back. Guy's got a hell of a life ahead of him.. *cough*
 
Hey all I'm sayin' is that it should count for something.

When a guy gets a divorce, the judge says "split it up"... meaning THE GUY'S MONEY... so this guy says "hey, as long as you're splitting up my past AND FUTURE income... maybe we should figure this little gift into that number... since it's not only an expensive gift that was given under false pretenses... but it could ALSO affect my long-term future prospects."

I don't know why it seems so logical to me, and so illusive to so many other people. The guy is ALREADY giving the woman SOME PORTION of his future prospects, and he wants credit for that... which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The lady is saying it was a gift... it's in the past... and that it shouldn't factor into this settlement.

Bababooey Deepfocus! (my only gripe with stern is the most outrageous 10% of the show... I have to change the channel when they get into the porn crap... not that I'm uptight... but it just seems like the lowest form of shock-humor... other then that... I haven't listened to FM in 3 years.)
 
Last edited:
MattinSTL said:
Hey all I'm sayin' is that it should count for something.

When a guy gets a divorce, the judge says "split it up"... meaning THE GUY'S MONEY... so this guy says "hey, as long as you're splitting up my past AND FUTURE income... maybe we should figure this little gift into that number... since it's not only an expensive gift that was given under false pretenses... but it could ALSO affect my long-term future prospects."

I don't know why it seems so logical to me, and so illusive to so many other people. The guy is ALREADY giving the woman SOME PORTION of his future prospects, and he wants credit for that... which doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The lady is saying it was a gift... it's in the past... and that it shouldn't factor into this settlement.

Bababooey Deepfocus! (my only gripe with stern is the most outrageous 10% of the show... I have to change the channel when they get into the porn crap... not that I'm uptight... but it just seems like the lowest form of shock-humor... other then that... I haven't listened to FM in 3 years.)
Click to expand...

I'm not a lawyer, but i don't think that argument will hold up in court. Anything given as a gift is not valid to be split in a divorce settlment. While it should be factored in out of common decency, divorce proceedings are almost never about anything decent, and the courts only care about the laws.
 
I'm sure the defense will be that "the gift" was given under false pretenses. We're not talking about a ring, or a new car... this is certainly something that was discussed... and given with a certain understanding of the relationship.

If the relationship wasn't presented honestly, but rather, disguised for sake of one person's advantage... and the resulting consequence of which could affect the future of the other party (not, "hey I spent this money and you turned on me"... but rather, "hey my future health and ability to earn may be affected by this... because you lied to me)... well I think that's why there's a legit case.

The guy isn't asking for money from her... he's asking for consideration in the settlement, since he was conned in a fraudulent relationship... and believing that lie cost him something irreplaceable, and arguably worth a lot of money.

If the chick found a new guy during her marriage... and she's already living with that new guy... let him support her. Divorce in this country is such a joke.

So... if I lie to you about a film partnership... and you give me your HVX... and then I go become a partner with somebody else using your HVX... and you find out that I already KNEW I was going to do this when I comforted you into giving me your camera... I guess that's a gift huh? So just because they're married... and it's an organ... it's not fraudulent?

The guy isn't asking for his kidney back... he's asking the chick to have just a little humility considering the circumstances.
 
Batutta said:
According to this article, organ donations are legally considered gifts in the united states. If that is true, then that is the end of the story.

http://www.divorcemag.com/articles/Divorce_News/kidney-divorce-settlement-new-york-23456.shtml
Click to expand...
That and there is way too much "He said" "She said"

Is there even any proof of the affair? I haven't been following closely enough to know myself. If he's spouting about on talk shows of an affair and he can't prove it.... he's going to owe more than he thought possible.

Regardless, most courts won't touch this claim.
 
The other thing that bothers me about this is, what if he DID know that she was cheating? Would he have NOT given her the kidney even if it meant she would die? Sorry, as pissed off as I'd be, I wouldn't let someone I once loved die out of spite.
 
Holy simplifiers Batman!

We're talking about fair alimony. He wants his gesture to count for something. How is that unreasonable?

I don't care how it turns out... but I also can't see how this is anything outside of mathematics... when divorce turns to alimony and deciding what that alimony should be... it's all business anyway... in the truest sense of the term. The man is being viewed as a business that the woman was once part of... and her future payments are being determined by his future earnings... based on the value of her investment in "the business" as the business was growing... if the girl was moonlighting at another company and has to keep the company car she was given... and the boss has to pay her a golden parachute... I don't think it's unreasonable to say "hey can we take off the cost of that company car?" It's possible that the girl's acceptance of that gift will affect the business' future earnings... and as long as you're claiming a share of the future earnings... the thing you did (or accepted) which would negatively affect that should negatively affect your take.

The word "love" blurs the lines of financial math in a divorce, but don't kid yourself... it's finances and business... because that's what SHE is making it about.

To say that he would have withheld the kidney out of spite is speculation... maybe he's a dick... I don't know... but if he gave up something valuable under false pretenses... I think it's fair to consider an assessed value on that item, when the party leaving wants more.

So if they no longer love each other... and gifts that are based on love should be outside of ethics and the law... then why should he pay her anything? He should forget about the kidney and she should forget about alimony.

I do agree that the guy has an uphill battle... but I don't think it's as ridiculous as it at first sounds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top