MovieChat Forums > Succession (2018) Discussion > Divorce Settlement - Season 3 Spoiler

Divorce Settlement - Season 3 Spoiler

posted 3 years ago by FootOfDavros (8232)
12 replies | jump to latest

I don't really get the end.

The kids believed they had a super majority as a consequence of Logan's divorce settlement with their mom.

However Logan reveals he's renegotiated the divorce settlement deal, so the kids no longer have this benefit.

Fine... But only how does he manage to do this AFTER the mother has remarried? Wouldn't their divorce - and obviously the attached settlement - have to have been completed BEFORE she could remarry? 🤔

Or am I missing something?

reply

[–] jriley555 (8194) 2 years ago

Tom called Logan and dropped the dime. The worm turned.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8232) 2 years ago

I appreciate that Tom called Logan. But that doesn't change the order of events I was questioning above.

reply

[–] jriley555 (8194) 2 years ago

I'm not a lawyer, can't answer that question.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8232) 2 years ago

No worries. Thanks for the input anyway 👍

Perhaps some unemployed lawyer wasting their time on here can help us out with the answer...

reply

[–] jriley555 (8194) 2 years ago

I would speculate that a settlement, whether associated with a divorce or some other event, could be subject to renegotiation, particularly if both sides voluntarily undertake to do so. Just as Marcia's marriage agreement was renegotiated.

The irony of it was that Caroline abandoned her children's interest, in favor of her caddish new husband, a comparative trifle in the scheme of things.

In the end, selfishness abounded from stem to stern in the family. Though I thought the siblings banding together represented a breakthrough for them, of sorts - a finally coming of age.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8232) 2 years ago

Yeah, the mother was another horrible self serving character to add to the pile!

I felt particularly sorry in that scene when Kendell wanted someone to talk to / to come clean to but she just didn't want to deal with his problem...

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

If both sides agree, but suspension of disbelief is needed for how quickly it happened.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8232) 2 years ago

I'm sure you're right that they could arrange their settlement quickly but what I was getting at is that it seems to have been done after she'd already re- married.

I was guessing the settlement would have to have been made beforehand.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

I understood what you meant, but remarriage doesn't dissolve all aspects of the settlement. What I meant was that a phone call in Italy couldn't make it happen in an instant, hence the suspension of disbelief required.

reply

[–] FootOfDavros (8232) 2 years ago

Yeah, that'd be true as well I'd guess.

But really, surely you cannot be signed off and fully divorced if you haven't agreed to the settlement terms...

Mind you I'm no lawyer - maybe you can have some pending clause that you'd be entitled to a certain amount if things weren't agreed by a set date. But even that seems unlikely.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 2 years ago

In most cases, it's things like alimony and child support that change upon remarrying. But if you had a deal for something that amounts to property ownership, you could amend/change if both parties agree. Every "You get this after we divorce" doesn't necessarily disappear once you remarry.

reply

[–] CalvinJarrett (462) 2 years ago

I think what happened was that on the eve of her marriage to that British charlatan, she traded some shares or voting interest in the company that she obtained as part of her divorce settlement for money so that her new husband could start some business/take part in some investment. That way she could be supported (by her new spouse) in the manner to which she was accustomed, or at least give off that impression. Once those shares (or their proportionate voting interest) went back to Logan, he had the majority to thwart the takeover his kids were planning.

Even if this happened after the nuptials, I don't think it would matter because as MartyDeniro pointed out, this interest in the company, was not alimony. It was something Caroline obtained (and would retain) regardless of her marital status. However, there was nothing stopping the original parties (Logan and Carioline) from renegotiating those terms. Logan saw that she needed cash at the same time he needed her voting shares. It was an easy trade for him and a less easy - yet apparently manageable enough transaction - for her.

reply