The shirt off his back/ The shoes off her feet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
blinkandimgone

blinkandimgone

Moderator
Hubby sues wife over $1m shoe collection in divorce battle | The Sun |News

On the surface it would seem she's a bit of a heel, however some digging into their background turns up the following info:


Ms. Shak: Charity, on the board of ONEXONE, Wish Upon A Hero. Supports the ASPCA, American Red Cross, Pediatric AIDS Foundation, hosted a charity event that raised over $1 million for a Children's Hospital. She divorced Mr. Shak, left a very extravagant lifestyle. Divorced for 4yrs. Accumulated the shoe collection over 20yrs. Is an entrepreneur devoted to fashion. Does not play poker anymore, unless for charity. Mother. HE IS SUING HER!

Mr. Shak: Hedge Fund manager, lost millions of other peoples money in gold market. Hedge Fund and Mr. Shak accountant, Reichman & Lazaroff of NJ, implicated $million art fraud in NYC. No charity work. Continues to gamble around the world in poker events, $million poker game. 3 properties valued at $18million. Private jets. like young exotic women.

Discuss!
 
Are we going to discuss the private jets filled with exotic women and Christian Louboutin fetishes? Or the settlement?

She had a million in assets she didn't include in her financial disclosure. The she started a self-promoting designer shoe website and the hubby realized what they were worth.

If she'd failed to disclose $1million in gold bullion, would we be having a conversation?

Looks more like she belonged to all of those charities as part (or all) of her New York social life, not so much out of philanthropy. She now lives in Philidelphia and is starting up her own line of designer shoes. Works if you've been able to get your name in the paper, her ex hubby probably did her a huge favour with this publicity.
 
This thread needs pics

This thread needs pics

spacer.gif

Beth-Shak--shoe-di_1535553a.jpg
 
**groan**

she states she goes to her closet and wears them.... so they're not exactly a collection (not like dolls or something collected for their value).... in your divorce, did you claim all of your runners & sandals?

he lost $7 mil on the gold market, at a time when Gold is trading at all time highs.....

I love her comment ".... He is saying he didn’t know the closet in our master bedroom existed.” LMAO!!!!!!!! That's kind of telling of how often he was there to see the closet!! LOL!!

Without more info it's hard to guess who's right and who's wrong..... but *just* based on the article, I think he's a prick who's pissed that his ex has moved on to a new man and has done well for herself!!
 
Well, again, he started the suit after she put up a website promoting her collection, and it was she herself who stated their value, after not including it in disclosure. If it were the hubby and his vintage sports car, would you say the same?

I think the ex-hubby is stretching things claiming he didn't know about them, but I think it just didn't occur to him at the time, and so now for the purposes of getting the courts to reopen the settlement he has to claim she hid them from him. I think more accuarately she hid the value from him, and he didn't think to challenge it.
 
Mess said:
Well, again, he started the suit after she put up a website promoting her collection, and it was she herself who stated their value, after not including it in disclosure. If it were the hubby and his vintage sports car, would you say the same?
Click to expand...

no because a vehicle (vintage or not) is an asset.....

she claims she didn't start this venture until she was encouraged to do so by her boyfriend..... in a way, a logical assumption may be that at the time of the divorce the shoes were just that - shoes - not an asset.....

ETA - but with **that** many, I'd call her a hoarder, not a collector!!
 
OK, maybe a better example, my brother had a 1960 Gibson Les Paul. To him it was just a guitar in the closet, my sister-in-law never thought about it, and he would never have declared it as an asset.

So today similar Les Paul's can sell for $120,000. Are you saying it wasn't an asset? Let's say my brother didn't declare it because he didn't think of it. When he puts it up on the internet for sale a couple of years later does that change anything?
 
Mess said:
OK, maybe a better example, my brother had a 1960 Gibson Les Paul. To him it was just a guitar in the closet, my sister-in-law never thought about it, and he would never have declared it as an asset.

So today similar Les Paul's can sell for $120,000. Are you saying it wasn't an asset? Let's say my brother didn't declare it because he didn't think of it. When he puts it up on the internet for sale a couple of years later does that change anything?
Click to expand...

I don't believe so because even to me, it's not an asset... it's just a guitar (a really nice one at that!)

I kept a lot of the stuffed animals I had as a kid, kept some in really good condition, and a couple of them, some would consider collector pieces.... but to me they're just stuffed animals....

IMO it's an asset if you own it for it's value, not if you wear it.... (exception of jewelery..) know what I mean......
 
@mumster: what an odd comment ^

So if a woman has a $50 bra, does that mean she's got very large breasts?

As for the shoe "collection" - I haven't read the article but I should. A pity I've got nothing lying around that is suddenly worth all kinds of cash :s
 
Talk about UGLY shoes!
I'd give him half - of the shoes.
I did lol about her comment re: the closet off of the master bedroom.
 
hadenough said:
@mumster: what an odd comment ^

So if a woman has a $50 bra, does that mean she's got very large breasts?

As for the shoe "collection" - I haven't read the article but I should. A pity I've got nothing lying around that is suddenly worth all kinds of cash :s
Click to expand...

stands to reason......more cloth cost more........if you need a big bra and big panties its gone cost ya......me i don't have that problem. i don't wear any

shit i hope my ex doesn't try and reopen equalization and use it against me.
 
I agree with Mess/Billm.

If he had of kept in his drawer a collection of watches worth $1mil, wouldn't that be the same.

On your financial statement you are supposed to list your assets and liabilities. Just because one wears something doesn't make it any less of an asset.

As for the $40 panties (gonna take the fun out of the idea and go strictly with logic), well if you had about 25,000 pair and could sell them for a significant sum like the shoes this woman has, then I would consider it an asset.

You should ask what some of th poker community think of Beth Shak.....she is a supposed poker pro, but most are of the belief that she isn't so much of a pro, but wealthy enough to play and not worry about the money......

others of called her soleless...... ;)
 
HammerDad said:
I agree with Mess/Billm.

If he had of kept in his drawer a collection of watches worth $1mil, wouldn't that be the same.

On your financial statement you are supposed to list your assets and liabilities. Just because one wears something doesn't make it any less of an asset.

As for the $40 panties (gonna take the fun out of the idea and go strictly with logic), well if you had about 25,000 pair and could sell them for a significant sum like the shoes this woman has, then I would consider it an asset.

You should ask what some of th poker community think of Beth Shak.....she is a supposed poker pro, but most are of the belief that she isn't so much of a pro, but wealthy enough to play and not worry about the money......
Click to expand...


the panties are worth more if they are worn.....you see them on the internet for sale all the time.

would you be able to include the increase in value for equalization?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top