Historic Payout in Divorce?

I just read where a Chicago woman received a $184 million award in her divorce. The article described it as an historic payout. It stated that the woman was awarded 50% of the marital assets. Even though the amount awarded is big, getting one half of the marital estate hardly seems historic to me.

The article did state that she received $170 of the award in nontaxable cash. It reminds us that not all marital assets are equal. There will no doubt be a big tax obligation associated with the assets awarded to the husband, since the story told how the couple arrived in the United States with meager assets and built their fortune. After taxes, I suspect she received much more than 50% of the marital estate.

While the husband may have contributed more industry and skill in generating the wealth, what is so shocking about an equal division of the marital estate? The husband will still be wealthy and is engaged in a new business enterprise. His prospects look pretty good.

I find little credence to an argument that the wife is unjustly enriched. She invested in the marriage when it had little market value. Should she not share in the prosperity? Who really knows what moves the court to decide any case the way it does? Perhaps someone irritated the judge during trial. Perhaps the husband came accross as too greedy. Perhaps both sides were reasonable and sensible and the court simply felt like 50/50 was equitable.