Is this news?
Mar 26th, 2009 by Adrienne Keith
Does seeing something everywhere make it “news”?
Lately there have been many stories about the George David divorce trial, including this one in the Hartford Courant and this older one on the CBS News site. 
The back story on the case is that 67-year-old United Technologies Corporation Board Chair George David is divorcing 36-year-old Swedish countess and former Wall Street investment analyst Marie Douglas-David. David’s wealth is estimated at $329 million, of which Douglas-David is reportedly seeking about $100 million plus $130,000 per month in spousal support.
The couple executed a post-nuptial agreement (like a pre-nup, but after marriage) in 2005. Under the post-nuptial agreement, Douglas-David would receive approximately $38 million in cash, stock and a Park Avenue apartment. $38 million in and of itself is a lot of money; $100 million is more than two-and-a-half times that!
Douglas-David has challenged the post-nup on the basis that she was coerced into signing it. As with any contract, a post-nuptial agreement must be entered into without any “undue influence”. Douglas-David and her lawyers will have the burden of proving the coercion they allege.
Douglas-David and her lawyer have also taken the position that she and her husband discussed United Technologies Corp. (”UTC”) and that those conversations helped him run the company and therefore she is entitled to the larger share of asset. Given that I don’t practice in Connecticut, I’m unsure what their law recognizes in this respect. Looking at this from Washington law, the argument seems to be that Douglas-David’s conversations with her husband are being characterized as a marital efforts that caused an increase in value to the business.
The sensational part of the story so far has been the spending habits of this couple. They took a $200,000 yacht cruise. David bought Douglas-David $255,000 earrings at one point in 2005 and $48,000 in other jewelry that year. In December 2008 Douglas-David initially claimed weekly expenses of $53,826. In March 2009, she adjusted that downward to $30,262. Here are both financial affidavits.
But let me get back to my point: Is this news? Millions of other couples deal with these issues, just not at such a high spot on the financial ladder. Is the amount of money at issue the factor that makes this news? The jury is still out. (And the David vs. Douglas-David matter has been continued until July.)