I find it hard to believe that CZJ's character tearing up the pre-nup would entitle her to anything. I find it hard to believe the courts would rule in favour of a known gold digger who had no money just because she tore a pre-nup apart.
I know a little German... he's right over there.
Not to mention, only being married a month or so. Most states base how much of an estate you're entitled to, to how long you've actually been married, so you'd have to suspend belief to think she'd get 50% after deciding after a month, that the marriage wasn't "working out".
shareI think the movie is good (not great) and enjoyable if you ignore actual principles of law. The film takes place in a universe where:
-physically damaging a written agreement voids the agreement
-annulment apparently does not exist (even for Vegas weddings!)
-there is one, and only one, absolutely ironclad prenuptial agreement, and yet only one firm uses it
But you can't take these things too seriously.
All excellent points. My biggest problem is that the movie makes such a big deal about infidelity leading to these women gaining much of their ex-husbands' wealth--despite even that concept being based more in fantasy than reality--and yet as soon as our leads are married, Catherine is off to divorce him and expects half his estate, with no infidelity required. If this movie is taking place in that crazy universe, why bother with Gus Petch at the beginning at all with the train nut? She could have apparently decided to divorce him on Day one and gotten rich.
----------------------
Boopee doopee doop boop SEX
Hiring Gus was probably just her way of making sure she'd win. I don't know what she was planning on doing to prove that she needed to divorce Clooney at the end.
share