5 ms·

MacKenzie Scott, Billionaire Philanthropist, Files for Divorce

17 points by karaokeyoga 4y ago

karaokeyoga 4y ago
https://archive.ph/tkRjj https://archive.ph/tkRjj
mjfl 4y ago
- metadat 4y ago
- speed_spread 4y ago
  - fallinghawks 4y ago
    - TMWNN 4y ago
- scombridae 4y ago
Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago
swyx 4y ago
oh notably... this is for her SECOND marriage, the one AFTER bezos. soo.. does the new guy get half? :eyes:
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  It really depends on the locality. He might. She might keep almost all of it minus some alimony. The fortune came in with the right half of the relationship to keep it intact, though.
- fallinghawks 4y ago
  Not likely. Depends on the state but typically what you own before marriage remains only yours. Anything you acquire after the marriage may become community property. No doubt someone so wealthy will start with a good prenup.
sn0w_crash 4y ago
2 years ago these outlets portrayed her as “wife of Jeff Bezos.” Now they introduce her as “billionaire philanthropist” I’m not throwing shade I’m just making an observation.
- wmf 4y ago
  What has changed in two years? Forbes reported that Scott donated $8.5 billion across 780 organizations in one year (July 2020 to July 2021) according to Wikipedia.
mataug 4y ago
>The petition says any division of property is laid out in a separation contract, agreed to by the couple, which is not public They had a prenup, and he's probably not getting half of her wealth, and both of them are going to be fine. Its sad that their marriage didn't work out, but that's none of our business. There's not much else to this story IMHO.
- swyx 4y ago
  just sad that even two seemingly nice people were unable to find lasting love in this phase of their life i guess. agree its none of our biz, we're just gossipping and this doesnt beling on hn
neilv 4y ago
There could be something relevant to the public interest in this, like possible impact on charities. But this piece looks to me like celebrity/paparazzi 'news', with a bunch of random snooping, and I don't understand why it's in the Business section of the New York Times.
GoodJokes 4y ago

17 points by karaokeyoga 4y ago

karaokeyoga 4y ago

https://archive.ph/tkRjj https://archive.ph/tkRjj

mjfl 4y ago

metadat 4y ago
speed_spread 4y ago
- fallinghawks 4y ago
  - TMWNN 4y ago
scombridae 4y ago

Bubble_Pop_22 4y ago

swyx 4y ago

oh notably... this is for her SECOND marriage, the one AFTER bezos. soo.. does the new guy get half? :eyes:

pclmulqdq 4y ago
It really depends on the locality. He might. She might keep almost all of it minus some alimony. The fortune came in with the right half of the relationship to keep it intact, though.
fallinghawks 4y ago
Not likely. Depends on the state but typically what you own before marriage remains only yours. Anything you acquire after the marriage may become community property. No doubt someone so wealthy will start with a good prenup.

sn0w_crash 4y ago

2 years ago these outlets portrayed her as “wife of Jeff Bezos.” Now they introduce her as “billionaire philanthropist” I’m not throwing shade I’m just making an observation.

wmf 4y ago
What has changed in two years? Forbes reported that Scott donated $8.5 billion across 780 organizations in one year (July 2020 to July 2021) according to Wikipedia.

mataug 4y ago

>The petition says any division of property is laid out in a separation contract, agreed to by the couple, which is not public They had a prenup, and he's probably not getting half of her wealth, and both of them are going to be fine. Its sad that their marriage didn't work out, but that's none of our business. There's not much else to this story IMHO.

swyx 4y ago
just sad that even two seemingly nice people were unable to find lasting love in this phase of their life i guess. agree its none of our biz, we're just gossipping and this doesnt beling on hn

neilv 4y ago

There could be something relevant to the public interest in this, like possible impact on charities. But this piece looks to me like celebrity/paparazzi 'news', with a bunch of random snooping, and I don't understand why it's in the Business section of the New York Times.

GoodJokes 4y ago