Psycho Divorce Spat: Man Wants Half of Wife’s Breast Implants Back

December 9, 2009

(ChattahBox)—An estranged North Dakota husband and his attorney have presented a novel argument expanding the legal definition of “marital assets.” He is asking the court to award him a cut of his wife’s boob job, claiming the expensive and quite delicious implants should be considered marital assets, just the same as the couple’s automobiles, home and La-Z-Boy recliners.

The case of Isaacson v. Isaacson may go down in history, as one of the more ridiculous divorce cases, more suitable for the tawdry Fox show “Divorce Court.” Erik Isaacson is perhaps thinking ahead to the possibly unenhanced boobs of the future Mrs. Isaacson.

He asked the North Dakota family court judge to consider the $5,500 spent on his wife Traci’s breast enhancement, when dividing the couple’s assets.

Judge Wefald was perplexed, as to how he could possible split a boob job in half, referring to the husband’s request, as “absolutely nonsense.”

Judge Wefald wasn’t persuaded by Isaacson’s attorney’s attempt to cast a boob job, as “clearly cosmetic, elective, (and) non-necessary,” which should be viewed as a divisible asset.

“I can’t imagine people would actually waste time thinking that breast implants are marital assets. It just defies common sense. I don’t know how you would expect me to award breast implants, if you want me to have them cut out and given to Mr. Isaacson,” said the exasperated judge.


h/t Wonkette


2 Responses to “Psycho Divorce Spat: Man Wants Half of Wife’s Breast Implants Back”

  1. Cory Aidenman on December 10th, 2009 7:43 am

    Interesting post

  2. ds on January 16th, 2010 2:22 pm

    fucking interestingh

Got something to say? **Please Note** - Comments may be edited for clarity or obscenity, and all comments are published at the discretion of - Comments are the opinions of the individuals leaving them, and not of or its partners. - Please do not spam or submit comments that use copyright materials, hearsay or are based on reports where the supposed fact or quote is not a matter of public knowledge are also not permitted.