• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

$1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing'

Top Cat

Top Cat

He's the most tip top
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 4, 2011
Messages
32,996
Reaction score
14,642
Location
Near Seattle
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
[h=2]Sometimes a billion dollars just isn't enough.[/h]Sue Ann Hamm, the former wife of oil billionaire Harold Hamm, plans on appealing an Oklahoma court ruling earlier this week which awarded her nearly $1 billion in the couples' divorce.


Mrs. Hamm, 58, contends the award is not fair. The couple were married for 26 years, have two children and had no prenuptial agreement. As of August, Mr. Hamm was worth over $20 billion, according to Wealth-X.
"Sue Ann is disappointed in the outcome of this case," said her lawyer Ron Barber. "She dedicated 25 years as Harold's faithful partner in family and business."
Related: Oil tycoon to pay $1 billion divorce settlement
As part of the settlement, Mrs. Hamm will be paid a third of the $995.5 million by the end of the year. Her ex-husband is on a payment plan for the remaining $650 million, which he will pay in installments of at least $7 million per month.
Mrs. Hamm, a lawyer and economist, held executive positions at Mr. Hamm's oil company, Continental Resources (CLR).
Harold Hamm is somewhat of a legend in the oil businesses. He built the company from the ground up, pioneered the use of fracking and led the development of North Dakota's Bakken oil field.
During the trial, lawyers for Mrs. Hamm argued that his success was the result of his skill and hard work, and that as his partner she helped make that possible and should be entitled to a sizable share of his wealth.
Lawyers for Mr. Hamm contended that his wealth was mostly out of his control, dictated more by the rise in oil prices and, as such, is largely not subject to sharing in a divorce.
"The company was Mr. Hamm's for over 20 years prior to the marriage," said Mr. Hamm's attorney Craig Box.
Click to expand...


Geesh...7 million a month? And she's whining?

Should she actually get more?


http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/14/luxury/harold-hamm-divorce/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
 
I wonder if she is disappointed because she didn't get "enough", or is it because she wasn't able to take more away from him.

There is a point when enough is enough, and more doesn't really improve ones life any.
 
Top Cat said:
Geesh...7 million a month? And she's whining?

Should she actually get more?


$1 billion divorce settlement 'disappointing' - Nov. 14, 2014
Click to expand...

This severely deluded woman should get jack.

She's old enough to take care of herself. Their kids are either past or very near adult age. And when you leave a partnership, you should not be entitled to continue pilfering off your former partner's income. It makes no goddamn sense that someone should remain responsible for someone else's finances after disolving their legal partnership.

And to complain about it when you're being (unjustly) awarded more money than anyone could ever possibly spend?

Good lord, what a childish, entitled woman.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
This severely deluded woman should get jack.

She's old enough to take care of herself. Their kids are either past or very near adult age. And when you leave a partnership, you should not be entitled to continue pilfering off your former partner's income. It makes no goddamn sense that someone should remain responsible for someone else's finances after disolving their legal partnership.

And to complain about it when you're being (unjustly) awarded more money than anyone could ever possibly spend?

Good lord, what a childish, entitled woman.
Click to expand...

Rich people often feel entitled.
 
I did not really see from the article (or any other on the subject) that she was "whining" about the monetary value, now and future, settlement. If anything the argument her lawyers put forth was a good one on her participation in the generation of that wealth. As such, not sure I care enough about the "disappointment" assuming it was according to the position of the OP. The appeal may be entirely about her input into the company over time being worth more than this judge thought.
 
The fact that the company was his for 20 years before they married strongly suggests to me that she should be very happy and STFU.


Been up to me, she wouldn't have gotten nearly so much.
 
imagep said:
I wonder if she is disappointed because she didn't get "enough", or is it because she wasn't able to take more away from him.

There is a point when enough is enough, and more doesn't really improve ones life any.
Click to expand...




Almost certainly the latter.
 
Should have would have could have had a prenuptial agreement :cool:

No sympathy for the sucker!
 
OrphanSlug said:
I did not really see from the article (or any other on the subject) that she was "whining" about the monetary value, now and future, settlement. If anything the argument her lawyers put forth was a good one on her participation in the generation of that wealth. As such, not sure I care enough about the "disappointment" assuming it was according to the position of the OP. The appeal may be entirely about her input into the company over time being worth more than this judge thought.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't say anything about how she supposedly "contributed." This company was his, and successfully so, long before their marriage. Being a cheerleader doesn't count as a substantial contribution to real wealth. Any decent friend or family member should be a good cheerleader. No lawyer mandates you cut them a check for that. That's a completely ridiculous argument.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
But it doesn't say anything about how she supposedly "contributed." This company was his, and successfully so, long before their marriage. Being a cheerleader doesn't count as a substantial contribution to real wealth. Any decent friend or family member should be a good cheerleader. No lawyer mandates you cut them a check for that. That's a completely ridiculous argument.
Click to expand...

If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.
 
OrphanSlug said:
If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.
Click to expand...

Demanding more than what one could realistically responsibly ever use, is pretty much my definition of greed. But like I asked earlier, maybe her demands aren't greed, maybe it's punitive to him.
 
OrphanSlug said:
If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.
Click to expand...

Well, then what's wrong with her just getting her normal salary, if she is still employed there? And if she is not, why should she get anything?

At no point was she running the actual company. She was not the CEO. She was just a regular employee, with probably at least a dozen other people occupying the same position she was at any given moment in time. She didn't start it. She didn't lead it. She did a normal salaried position. She is entitled to whatever her salary is for as long as she continues to work there, or if for whatever reason she is owed backpay. Nothing more, nothing less.

She is greedy. She's complaining about becoming a billionaire for work she never did.
 
Last edited:
imagep said:
Demanding more than what one could realistically responsibly ever use, is pretty much my definition of greed. But like I asked earlier, maybe her demands aren't greed, maybe it's punitive to him.
Click to expand...

Amazing, so how did you define that her input made her settlement "disappointment" as greed yet he has no fault?
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Well, then what's wrong with her just getting her normal salary, if she is still employed there? And if she is not, why should she get anything?

At no point was she running the actual company. She was not the CEO. She was just a regular employee, with probably at least a dozen other people occupying the same position she was at any given moment in time. She didn't start it. She didn't lead it. She did a normal salaried position. She is entitled to whatever her salary is for as long as she continues to work there, or if for whatever reason she is owed backpay. Nothing more, nothing less.

She is greedy. She's complaining about becoming a billionaire for work she never did.
Click to expand...

How do you know what any of that was? None of these articles seems real clear on it yet somehow she is "greedy" and he is not. Explain that when we have no real idea what the relationship was of her input to the company. She seems to have an opinion. Now I am not saying she is right and he is wrong, just saying there must be more to the story here that most of you seem to want to ignore more than discover for this discussion we are having here.
 
Jeez...how can rich a guy be so stupid.

It's called a 'pre-nup'.

DUH...if a woman won't marry you with it, she does not love you.
 
OrphanSlug said:
How do you know what any of that was? None of these articles seems real clear on it yet somehow she is "greedy" and he is not. Explain that when we have no real idea what the relationship was of her input to the company. She seems to have an opinion. Now I am not saying she is right and he is wrong, just saying there must be more to the story here that most of you seem to want to ignore more than discover for this discussion we are having here.
Click to expand...

Your summary said she was paid. If she is no longer working there, why should she continue to be paid for work she isn't doing? If she *is* still working there, what's wrong with her normal salary? Why does she need a billion dollars on top of it?

There cannot possibly be "more to the story" if she does not own part of the company. Whether or not it is legal or common, it is wrong for a grown adult to demand to be supported by someone they've divorced. If you don't want to be a partner, why do you deserve their money? You don't. It's quite simple. Unless there are some kind of legitimate damages -- and having to be a grown-up and figure out your own finances does not count -- you don't deserve the monetary support of someone you are not in a partnership with.

There is quite simply nothing else to take into account ethically, regardless of whatever nonsense the law might allow.

Someone who complains about receiving a billion dollars they did nothing to earn is simply greedy.
 
imagep said:
Demanding more than what one could realistically responsibly ever use, is pretty much my definition of greed. But like I asked earlier, maybe her demands aren't greed, maybe it's punitive to him.
Click to expand...
What about what he could realistically ever use?
 
OrphanSlug said:
If I understand the story right, both CNN and the AP, Sue Hamm worked at Continental Resources for several long stretches during the marriage as both an economist and a lawyer with one article suggesting there was a time she was in charge of the crude oil marketing division selling oil to international contracts (but both articles are unclear exactly what her corporate rank was.) Even though she "officially" left the company in 2008 she reported income during time periods after that date. I do not even think the appeal has anything to do with time she was raising their kids, I think it comes down to her notions of her input into the company overtime contributing to where the company is today. Harold Hamm seems to be keeping some 94% (ish) of all of this, probably adding to her reasons for the appeal. The humorous part is we see people here above suggesting she is "greedy," but less than 10% of the value of the company is going to her over time. His $18 billion (unrealized) Continental Resources shares is still his. It sounds to me like there is far more to the story than the OP is letting on with his nonsense that she is the greedy one.
Click to expand...

In my state it would be an issue largely of what the company was worth the day they split minus what it was worth the day they married divided by 2.
 
DA60 said:
Jeez...how can rich a guy be so stupid.

It's called a 'pre-nup'.

DUH...if a woman won't marry you with it, she does not love you.
Click to expand...

Her point of view is likely that if he demands one, he doesn't lover her.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Your summary said she was paid. If she is no longer working there, why should she continue to be paid for work she isn't doing? If she *is* still working there, what's wrong with her normal salary? Why does she need a billion dollars on top of it?

There cannot possibly be "more to the story" if she does not own part of the company. Whether or not it is legal or common, it is wrong for a grown adult to demand to be supported by someone they've divorced. If you don't want to be a partner, why do you deserve their money? You don't. It's quite simple. Unless there are some kind of legitimate damages -- and having to be a grown-up and figure out your own finances does not count -- you don't deserve the monetary support of someone you are not in a partnership with.

There is quite simply nothing else to take into account ethically, regardless of whatever nonsense the law might allow.

Someone who complains about receiving a billion dollars they did nothing to earn is simply greedy.
Click to expand...

These are all statements you are assuming. I get your logic, but it does not match the legal reality once all of this ends up in front of a judge. Technically by your reasoning she should not have received what she did.
 
Declan said:
In my state it would be an issue largely of what the company was worth the day they split minus what it was worth the day they married divided by 2.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps how this was handled had different legal parameters that I still suggest means "more to the story."
 
Muhammed said:
What about what he could realistically ever use?
Click to expand...

Wealth.

the guy is a billionare. At an annual ROI of just 2% on just one billion (he had several billion), that would work out to about $1.6 million a month, or close to $56k per day. I can't imagine being able to spend that much every day. I wouldn't even be able to enjoy myself because I would be spending all my time trying to spend money.
 
OrphanSlug said:
These are all statements you are assuming. I get your logic, but it does not match the legal reality once all of this ends up in front of a judge. Technically by your reasoning she should not have received what she did.
Click to expand...

Assuming what? She is not the owner of the company. She deserves nothing, unless she is employed there, in which case she deserves exactly her normal salary and nothing more.

Like I said, whatever silliness is permitted by law is a totally different matter, and isn't relevant to a debate about what she should get from an ethical perspective, which has been my focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom