Divorce man 'wants kidney back' Some divorce lawyers say a kidney is not a marital asset to be divided
A US man divorcing his wife is demanding that she return the kidney he donated to her or pay him $1.5m (£1m) in compensation.
Dr Richard Batista told reporters that he decided to go public because he was frustrated at the slow pace of divorce negotiations with his estranged wife.
He said he had not only given his heart to his wife, Dawnell, but donated his kidney to save her life.
But divorce lawyers say a donated organ is not a marital asset to be divided.
Dr Batista married Dawnell in 1990 and donated the kidney to her in 2001. She filed for divorce in 2005 and a settlement has still not been reached.
'Betrayal'
He told reporters at his lawyer's office in Long Island, New York, that going public was a last resort.
I felt humiliated, betrayed, disrespected and disregarded
Dr Richard Batista
"There is no deeper pain that you can ever express than betrayal from somebody who you love and devoted your life to," he said. He said he had been prevented from seeing their three children for extended periods.
"I felt humiliated, betrayed, disrespected and disregarded for me as a person, as a man, as a husband, as a father."
Dr Batista's lawyer, Dominic Barbara, said his client was "asking for the value of the kidney" that he gave his wife.
A lawyer for Mrs Batista said: "The facts aren't as represented by Dr Batista. We will be addressing the issues before the judge within the next few days."
Posts
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
All I get from this is a feeling of the guy being a petty douchebag.
Some things just shouldnt be divided up in divorce court. Just like his ex-wife shouldnt be able to turn around and hand him an 11 year invoice for her personal services as an escort service.
MWO: Adamski
:edit: IIRC, they'd been having marital problems, he wanted to save the marriage, and donated the kidney.
So really it seems more like they're both petty douche bags.
In other news, dog bites man.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think he's probably just trying to use this for leverage.
The foundation of a stable society.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Only if the gays can't marry. If they can...chaos!
And I don't think this is the fault of marriage, it's the fault of people being assholes. We don't whine about how much cars suck because some guy decided to use his to run down the guy he was pissed at.
Yeah, I was being mostly flippant.
Mostly.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
(come on, someone had to!)
No just one rib.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I hear that in my head as Cartman, not as the little girl from Aliens.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Man, leave it to the woman to come in here and totally villainize the guy. Of course, if she were suing to get her virginity back, you'd be ready to knock down the gates for her.
I don't necessarily agree that this is dumb. An act of desperation, maybe.
First they want the kids
Then they want the house
Then they want their kidneys
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That sums it up. I feel for the guy. We don't have all the information, but I would say this guy is getting screwed if he doesn't get to see his children.
Maybe she should sue to get the value of all those blowjobs repaid
Ha, wives having sex with their husbands. Good one.
Man if he didn't at least negotiate a blowjob in reciprocation for that kidney he's totally pussy-whipped.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You give the girl a kidney and when she gets out of the hospital her first trip better be downtown know what I'm sayin?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And now so do I.
Which makes it better.
Is there much left to discuss here? Not in an I'ma-lock-this sense, but... really? Does anyone disagree that the move is some combination of desperation/tit-for-tat/douchery that will go nowhere in court and serve just to sensationalize the issue, and that the woman sounds like she's being a bitch?
I'm not sure where to go with this, other than lulz.
The story is that their marriage was on the rocks and he thought giving her a kidney and saving her life would help things.
He was wrong.
"Fine, I'll give you my organ, but after that I'ma give you my organ, capice?"
Yup, too bad for him. Kidney was still a gift, kidney is no longer his, value of kidney can't be reclaimed.
Let her keep the kidney. What he really needs is
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Incidentally, that makes him an ass and vaguely reminiscent of the creepy Nice Guys who whine about the girls who don't return their affections. "I love you! But, you know, not enough to save your life unless there's something in it for me."
Don't give her a kidney expecting a romance movie ending.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If we say it's fair for her to request support, how is it not fair for him to receive compensation for donating a kidney?