|
 |
|
#1
01-29-13, 08:06 AM
| ||||
| ||||
After Vanessa filed for divorce in 2011, rapper Drake said in the song "Stay Schemin' " that Vanessa didn't deserve a large sum of Bryant's fortune because "...you wasn't with me shootin' in the gym." That line became an instant hit and has often been repeated by Bryant's fans. On Monday morning, after Bryant tweeted about he and his wife drinking some coffee and tea, a fan replied saying, "but..... #SheWasntWithYouShootingInTheGym" Bryant immediately defended his wife. "no, she wasn't. She was busy raising our kids #nonanny #respectmothers," Bryant posted to his Twitter account. Vanessa Bryant has long been annoyed by that rap line. Earlier this month she posted to Instagram her thoughts on the song. "I love when immature kids quote a rapper that has never been friends with Kobe and knows nothing about our relationship. Just shows how gullible they are. I don't need to be in the gym. I'm raising our daughters, signing checks and taking care of everything else that pertains to our home life. "I really wish people would stop THINK and then realize that they are being sucked into someone's clear intention to monetize and gain attention off of our family's heartache. This is real life. I hold down our home life so my husband can focus on his career. It's a partnership. Kobe Bryant defends wife Vanessa over Twitter comment - latimes.com      |
|
#3
01-29-13, 11:28 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Lol i was just thinking ab what kobe thought of that line...which was classic btw...sry vanessa 
__________________  I'm Batman's cousin  |
|
#4
01-29-13, 01:40 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
...that's a relief. I thought Kobe was defending Vanessa's response to Shaq's rap-query. Shaq poses a question to Kobe...
__________________ Click HERE to see the rest of my "oversized" signature. "Leadership is diving after loose balls." -Larry Bird |
|
#5
01-29-13, 02:19 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
I am sorry, but the response from Kobe and Vanessa as to why she deserves a large portion of Kobe's portion cannot be because she is at home raising the kids. I raised my kids for a fraction of a fraction of the type of money Kobe makes. I don't buy it. 
__________________ Hibbert, who worked out with Duncan in San Antonio during the lockout, said he has grown close to the perennial All-Star. On Friday, he texted Duncan and asked how he should guard him. "He said, 'Go for every pump fake,' " Hibbert said. |
|
#6
01-29-13, 04:20 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
darkhorse - The reasoning behind her getting a large chunk of money is largely a product of California law. BTW, it would have not been logical for her to be noticeably poorer than Kobe when children are involved. If there was a shared custody agreement and say Kobe takes the kids across to Europe while Vanessa is unable to perform similar acts. If the kids for some reason decide that they like hanging out at Dad's better even though he's been gone for a lot of time while they were growing up, Vanessa could file a legal complaint that Kobe was coercing them with money. It's a ton easier to keep things quiet if you can afford it.
|
|
#8
01-30-13, 02:01 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
__________________ “The [Navy] specs called for Mach 2.34. We actually tested the airplane for Mach 2.5. I flew it 2.5 a couple times. When you fly a Phantom, it’s built for 2.0, but when you fly that fast you know it. It’s like sitting on a beach ball; you don’t know which way it’ll go, it’s so sensitive. In a F-14 it’s like sitting in a Cadillac. It’s solid. You don’t realize you’re going that fast. |
|
#9
01-30-13, 07:32 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
Doom.....I am not speaking legally, I am speaking philosophically. The whole, Multi-Millionaire marries.....wife.......divorces wife.......wife gets half even tho all she did was marry the guy. In Vanessa's case.....baller marries wife.....they have kids......wife gets a whole boatload of money even tho she didnt work to get any of it. They cited as the reason she gets a boatload of money is because she raised the kids, but it dont take millions to raise kids. It doesnt take millions to put a roof over the kids heads, clothes on their backs, food in their mouths. If that were the case, only the wealthy would have kids. Does that make sense?
__________________ Hibbert, who worked out with Duncan in San Antonio during the lockout, said he has grown close to the perennial All-Star. On Friday, he texted Duncan and asked how he should guard him. "He said, 'Go for every pump fake,' " Hibbert said. |
|
#10
01-30-13, 09:28 AM
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
The Tx. Fam. Code agrees with your philsophy...to an extent. There is actually a presumptive cap of $7,500 net monthly income from which support is calculated. Above that amount, you have to prove to a judge whether good reason exists for an order of support to attach to those funds. The cap is not an absolute, nor should it be. Like it or not, a pro athlete's kids have a lifestyle and needs--sometimes ridiculous sounding--that can and do exceed the amount under the cap. Because the cap is presumptive, it can be rebutted with adduced evidence that the child has needs for a nanny, au pair, travel, tutor, medical needs, bodyguard and so on. Personal experience here: Judges are people, too. You'll find quickly that there better be a DAMN good reason to request $40k/month in support, else your face will be chewed off by an irritated judge. For instance, what if the kid is a world-class horserider, and continued lessons, boarding, maintenance and other husbandry cost $12k/month? The harsh answer is: Tough. The real-world, more kid-friendly answer is found by departing from the presumptive guidelines. It comes down to a heckuva lot more than the "roof over the kids heads, clothes on their backs, food in their mouths" that you identified. Is it fair? Maybe not in the strictest philosophical sense, but it's a complicated calculus that Vannessa Bryant and countless others in her position make.
__________________ Click HERE to see the rest of my "oversized" signature. "Leadership is diving after loose balls." -Larry Bird |
|
#11
01-30-13, 05:34 PM
| ||||
| ||||
|
What Ever!
|
|
#12
01-31-13, 09:20 AM
| ||||
| ||||
|
The non-legal reasoning is also that if the kids have one filthy-rich baller as a dad and a normal-income mother, they may or may not be inclined to hang with dad as much as possible. This causes all sorts of friction as divorcees, and if the rich parent (regardless or sex) wanted what was best for the kids (which is often having a good relationship with both parents...and the parents not using the kids a bargaining chip), ensuring that there isn't a huge drop-off in lifestyle between the parents is a good idea.
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Linear Mode
