>Footballer Achraf Hakimi’s wife filed for divorce and demanded half of his property.
>She was however informed by court that her "Millionaire’ husband owns nothing as all his property is registered under his mother’s names.
>Hakimi receives €1 Million from PSG monthly but 80% of this is deposited in his mother Mrs. Fatima’s account.
>He has no property, cars, houses, jewelry or even clothes in his name.
Anytime, he wants anything, he asks his mother who buys it for him.

  • Letstakealook@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    I’ll concede, in specific circumstances, it may be warranted, but it is assumed to be the default currently. Far too often, the courts are used as a cudgel by a disgruntled former spouse who just wants to punch their former partner in the wallet. My father was such a disgruntled person. He was even engaged for the better part of a decade, refusing to marry until the alimony ran out. He was not a stay at home spouse, but due to his own choices, he made less than my mother. The default position should be that neither party is owed anything unless proven otherwise by specific evidence.

    Edit: ihad to look these two up. A 31 year old woman courted a 19 year old up and coming footballer and married them. Guess it takes a predator to know one. Even if it left her destitute (it wouldn’t), she doesn’t deserve a cent.