Marie Douglas David did not "constructively abandon" CEO of UTC George David: "I wanted more time in bed with my husband," she says

[GSMITHBOOK] Well, whatever caused the break down in the fairy tale marriage of 66 year old UTC chairman George David and 36 year old Swedish Countess Marie Douglas David (apparently she is the illegitimate daughter of a Count?) it sure as heck wasn’t lack of “consortium.” Nor was it a failure of Mr. David’s Viagra tablets (Viagra is a tablet, right?)  Not that we are saying he was taking Viagra. We are not. He probably didn’t need Viagra like a lot of men that age, because, according to what the Chicago Tribune says that his wife Marie testified on the stand, she wanted more, not less sex with her hubby. So he must have been one of those love machine types of men who are virile till they croak at, like, 206. And, you know, when I look at his pic, he does look slightly hot. But in kind of like, a daddyish kind of way, you know what I mean?
Marie Douglas David and her Swedish mom Birgitta Douglas and Marie’s team of lawyers are currently in Hartford Connecticut trying to get that prenup set aside. It is they who want it set aside, not George. Marie’s contention is that this post nup is no longer valid. First of all, she signed it after marriage (what would possess her to do that?) and second of all, they’ve had all these “reconciliations” since it was signed.
Connecticut does not require a finding of fault in a divorce action, so even if Marie had “constructively abandoned” (meaning she refused sex and there was no physical impediment, and this went on for a year or more) David, or vice versa, it doesn’t matter under Connecticut law. In New York it would matter. Maybe that’s why they filed in Connecticut because I am sure they meet the residency requirements for a divorce in New York, even though they have a spread in Avon Connecticut, and got married in Connecticut.
But to set aside an otherwise seemingly valid prenup or postnup, Marie and her lawyers, who are well regarded in the legal profession, by the way, have a high threshold to overcome. Connecticut has opted into the Premarital Agreement Act and that Act details the basis on which an agreement can be set aside. You can read the post here: Without a fairly convincing argument about why that agreement is not valid, I don’t think Marie will be able to get it struck down.
I mean, both her and her mother Birgitta Douglas are accusing George of, I guess, controlling behavior and maybe even cruelty. According to the Hartford Courant, Birgitta is quoted as saying, “he was so nice in the beginning…but my daughter has been through a terrible time.” (George apparently controls even the jewelry he purchased for his wife, keeping title in his name; he also refuses to give her a key to the Avon house; and he makes her sign promissory notes when he gives her money.) But what has that to do with the agreement she signed? Are they going to say she signed under duress?
At least, nobody can say he was a senile old man. He sounds like he was in full control of his senses. I am willing to bet all my earthly possessions – the two skirts, a Payless stiletto and a fountain pen – that George is the one who went after Marie. He was the aggressor. I’ve seen these types work it, and they can be very aggressive, and fresh, with younger women. The woman does not have to do a thing. Seriously. So, that is why I think Marie should not be called a gold digger in this scenario. This was a lucid, smart, cerebral man who was running a transnational corporation and who brought that company success on the level of, say, GE. He was not a “poor old man” who was seduced by a gold-digger. He was not feeble. He knew what he was doing and what he was getting into when he selected Marie. First of all, he wanted the young trophy wife to show off. But he also wanted the young woman whom he could control. A lot of older men are like that. They go for young women they can control. If Marie did marry him for the money, he consciously married her for his own reasons too. Maybe they loved each other. Maybe they didn’t.  It certainly was an arrangement that worked for them for six years.
But, to conclude this post so I can move on to the last one for the day (it’s my birthday and I’ve got to go celebrate!) I take back what I insinuated in this post. I don’t think the marriage broke up because of Viagra. Marie seemed to enjoy what her husband had to offer in that regard.
Oh, wait! I just walked away and thought about this…what if she meant “I wanted more sex with my husband but he was unable to oblige..?” That would not be “constructive abandonment” in New York, btw. It would not be the basis for a divorce, or even an annulment — so long as the problem developed after marriage. But so what? Why is this any of my darn bisnis? I need to mind my bisnis and get out of these people’s, boudoir, wouldn’t you concur? So you know what? I’m gonna stop with this post and go out to dinner for my B-day. This is enough.
Good day, mate!
Last updated 3/25/09 check out more posts here: