Man Demands One Breast Implant

A couple is divorcing in North Dakota, and he wants her boobs. Well, strictly speaking, he wants his half of the $5,500 the couple spent on beefing up her boobs while they were married.

In Isaacson v. Isaacson, Erik Isaacson is claiming that the value of Traci Isaacson's implants should be counted when the divorcing couple splits up its assets....

Judge Wefald reportedly found that the implant-related claim was "absolutely nonsense," stating that "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."...

His attorney argued more broadly that medical expenses should be deemed marital assets when they are "clearly cosmetic, elective, (and) non-necessary."

Interesting relevant case law here at First Wives World:

If a husband spends marital assets or uses marital property with the other woman, a wife can request the court to order her husband to re-pay any losses, either liquid assets or marital property. Usually this is done during mediation or a divorce settlement negotiation. For example, if a husband lavishes $8,000 on breast implants for the other woman, or pays rent on her apartment, a judge will consider this a dissipation of marital assets and order it re-paid to the marital estate.

Previously, I wrote about a case that redefined the concept of messy divorce. Is a kidney an "asset brought into the marriage"?

Via Walter Olson's Twitter feed.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Old Mexican||

    I love that billboard!

  • ||

    hot chandi, miss gandhi, great balls of fire!

  • Old Mexican||

    In Isaacson v. Isaacson, Erik Isaacson is claiming that the value of Traci Isaacson's implants should be counted when the divorcing couple splits up its assets...

    Hey, Isaacson, you idiot, assets are "assets" because they can become liquid (i.e. fungible). Unless a woman is willing to accept used breast implants (yuck!), the implants themselves are CONSUMIBLES, like food or anything that turns into CRAP when used or touched.

  • Clipper||

    IIRC "becoming liquid" was at the core of the law suits filed against implant manufacturers.

  • anarch||

    And in such a case, Clipper,

    a judge will consider this a dissipation of marital assets
  • Brian||

    As was impressed on us in the NY Bar Review class on domestic relations law, many intangible, non-fungible things are considered marital assets. For example, a professional degree earned during the marriage is considered a marital asset, and often courts will order some form of monetary compensation from the professional spouse as a way of "dividing" the asset.

    I have no problem applying that rule here.

  • ||

    Yeah, seems the sensible interpretation would consider the COST of the work, not the results themselves.

    Point is, don't pay for new boobs guys.

  • ||

    so fake boobs are like an AA in stripping?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Old Mexican - something that acts continuously to add value to someone else's life is not generally a "consumable". Like a boat, car or Nintendo Wii, Tracy presumably continues to enjoy the implants, which does not make them a consumable at all - they are still adding value and enjoyment to her life.

  • ||

    Till like 55 atleast.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Angry Optimist,

    Old Mexican - something that acts continuously to add value to someone else's life is not generally a "consumable".

    Nothing adds "value" to a person's life - what it adds is improvement in his or her welfare, either physiologically or psychologically. Value is a concept that exists only in the minds of the two parties that are engaged in exchange. The ONLY person that can say that this or that adds to his or her well-being is the very person, not someone else.

    The ONLY way an asset can be AN ASSET is if it has MARKET VALUE, i.e. other people may want to have it (buy it). If nobody wants it, then it is NOT an asset.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    but she wants it, right?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Angry Optimist,

    but she wants it, right?

    Just like she wanted the food she ate and the clothes she wore. What is the point you are trying to make - that "wanting" something makes it ipso facto "an asset"? I hope you don't ever get into a divorce dispute...

  • ||

    Even being used, they have tremendous market value. If money is what she is after, there is no better investment a woman can make than a nice set of titties. I have solid scientific anecdotal evidence, but she'd be pissed if I posted her phone number.

  • Old Mexican||

    Even being used, they have tremendous market value.

    Breast implants that are already installed do NOT have any value. In order for a value to be assigned, there must be a market transaction, and if a woman is not going to open herself to give the 2nd party her breast implants, then there is no value in them.

    If a collector wanted Pamela's breast implants, Ms. Anderson would have to take them off first, otherwise there would not be an exchange of titles...
  • Shannon Love||

    People forget that when it comes to the financial factors in a divorce that the law treats a marriage as a business partnership that owns common assets and has common income and debts.

    Part of the legal theory for alimony rested on the idea that while men brought money into a marriage women brought the equivalent of "sweat equity" and deserved to be compensated when the "partnership" dissolved.

    Not sure where boobs would factor in, though.

  • ||

    Why isn't lobster-girl accompanying this post? I thought we were clear on this point.

  • ||

    Here Here! Tallyho!

  • ||


  • BakedPenguin||

    Because those are natural, you heathen. Don't you dare slander lobster-girl.

  • ||

    Gee- if those "enhancements" are put in the asset "pot" I think we can assume the husband will be willing to accept a cash equivalent, rather than having her boob lopped off and mounted on the wall next to his prized mule deer heads.

    Is there some sort of maximum IQ limit for judges?

  • The Angry Optimist||

    Thank you for this. If the asset is not liquid, you can make it liquid. Good christ. And to think that because I am a libertarian, I'll never make it on the bench, but we have mongoloids like this sitting up there...

  • ||

    Maybe the guy was a total creepazoid in court, with the bulge of a fleshlight crammed in his pants, palpating a bare implant during the proceedings.

  • Old Mexican||

    P Brooks, the Judge is right.

    Tell me what "cash value" would you place on an already installed breast implant [under Economics, it is NOT the same good as a NEW breast implant still in its box). The Judge may have a better understanding of Economics than what many are willing to concede.

  • The Angry Optimist||

    The cash value of installing it. How hard was that?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Angry Optimist,

    The cash value of installing it. How hard was that?

    That's ridiculous. Was the installation a loan, under a contract? Then you may have a case. If not, the installation costs were a gift. Also, the value of the item is not determined by its installation costs - that's a sunk cost, you cannot get it back.

  • another boob||

    that's a sunk cost

    Then she deserves a refund.

  • Death Panelist||

    Can't you take the original cost of the pair of fun bags itself and then depreciate?

  • Old Mexican||

    No. You cannot "depreciate" something that nobody would want.

    Quick, what's the "depreciated" value of a used condim?

  • Old Mexican||


  • Ska||

    What's the expected useful life of said condom?

    You don't depreciate anything with a useful life of less than a year. But something tells me that tax law and family law look at the question of "what is an asset" differently.

  • Old Mexican||

    "USED" condom. Not a condom still in its package, but one that has a "package" in it (yucky...)

    Same with a USED breast implant. This is why I argue a breast implant is a consumible, not an asset.

  • ||

    Ska got your "used" usage right. The useful life of that used condom is far less than a year. By contrast, the useful life of a fresh jimmyhat is atleast 1yr (under good conditions.) But unless even the fresh condom is going to last 10years (they wont), assessing depreciation is probably not worth it. Which was Ska's point.

  • ||

    Oh, and implants last at least 10 years, if the work is good. Which was my point.

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, and implants last at least 10 years, if the work is good. Which was my point.

    You mean the used ones??

    I asked my wife if she would consider putting on used breast implants. "Yuck!" was her immediate expression.

    So, NO, they are NOT assets, since they are NOT fungible. It is like trying to sell shit at the same value as food....

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    There's a market for everything.

  • ||

    Seems like the boob job would be an expenditure on the husband's behalf, unless she did it right before the filing.

    I mean, what married woman would get a boob job for her own pleasure, if she intended to be monogamous?

  • ||

    It may have been initiated on his behalf, but then upon getting the implants her self-esteem went up as did the number of gentlemen who showed her some interest. That could be why they are getting divorced.

    I was the one who wanted to pay the extra $5 a month for the DVR service but it has benefited my wife a great deal. I wanted it so I could record lots of sports, movies, and shows but she gets me out of the house for all sorts of crap I wouldn't go to with her if it meant I missed a game on Sundays. Same thing here.

  • K-Y||

    I would demand the breast. But I'm vindictive like that.

  • MJ||

    A pound of silicone, closest to the heart!

  • ||

    I agree with Mr. Isaacson. They are "cosmetic, elective, unnecessary" and I would add "still hold value." $2750 doesn't seem like too much to account for on his behalf. Someone else will be enjoying them, probably before the ink dries.

  • ||

    A couple of things to think about:

    (1) If they hadn't gotten the boobs, that money would still be in the checking account to be divvied up.

    (2) Non-marketable assets are frequently included in the marital estate. There's all kinds of securities out there (limited partnership shares, for example) that are effectively unmarketable, but a value is still assigned to them in divorce.

  • Clipper||

    Someone linked to this story last week.

  • Granite26||

    It seems like cosmetic surgery should be treated exactly the same as the costs for accreditation or education. It's something that adds non-transferrable value to a single person.

  • Polynikes||

    I would countersue for the cost of his Viagra, if I were her...

  • Johnny Longtorso||

    What if she still has a balloon payment due on them?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I hate that gap between fake boobs.

  • ||

    Fill it....

  • ||

    Tell me what "cash value" would you place on an already installed breast implant

    That implies the Jaguar in the garage has no (knowable) value. What is the IRS depreciation schedule for boob jobs?

    "Pain and Suffering" can be assigned a cash value in a courtroom. The real and intangible value of this breast enhancement can be assigned a value. You can bet your ass the judge would be willing to assign a cash value if she were suing over and injury to, or loss of, those precious enhanced manbaits.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: P Brooks,

    That implies the Jaguar in the garage has no (knowable) value.

    You are exactly right - you will KNOW the value once you try to sell it, once you get someone to actually VALUE it. However, you can APPROXIMATE a value based on the market transactions for similar products (like the Blue Book value of a used Jaguar.)

    There is obviously no market known for used breast implants. Trying to give the implant a depreciated value based on the off-the-shelf price is like trying to find out the depreciated value of a DEAD calf based on its value at auction (when it was alive) - it ain't gonna happen: a living calf is a DIFFERENT GOOD than a DEAD calf.

    "Pain and Suffering" can be assigned a cash value in a courtroom.

    To me, pain and suffering is another way of calling a court-assigned gift. There is no way to measure "Pain and Suffering" in any objective way.

    The real and intangible value of this breast enhancement can be assigned a value.

    Economics-illiterate judges could do this. My contention is not that a judge cannot do it, but that it is fallacious to argue that breast implants are fungible assets.

  • Kroneborge||

    They don't have to be fungible, just something of value (ie an asset) that she got out of the divorce.

    Since she gets to keep it, and it would be unreasonable (althoug not impossible to divide up) then coming up with a value of cash in exchange is perfectly reasonable.

    Just take half the value of the impants, and then deduct the number from his share the number of years he got to enjoy them. Or to be more precise you could use the number of times they had sex, lol

    There does not have to be a market value on something to split it. Moreover, it can be something that has already been consumed. Think of consumer debt, or debt for a wedding etc.

  • Old Mexican||

    They don't have to be fungible, just something of value (ie an asset)

    Assets HAVE to be fungible, otherwise they are called "stumbling blocks", or "waste."

  • ||


  • Jeff P||

    Can he at least get visitation rights?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||


  • ||

    If a guy is so hateful and vindictive that this sounds like a good idea, why doesn't he just shoot her and get it over with. That's the ultimate win that he is seeking. Or maybe he could just grow up and get on with his life.

  • Paul||

    ...Always his fault...

  • T||

    I don't think he's hateful, vindictive, or wants the boobs. He wants half the cash equivalent credited towards her half of the settlement. He's trying to get out of the marriage without going broke, which is difficult to do.

  • Paul||

    word. Speaking from experience, your ass can go flat fucking broke as shit from a friendly, amicable divorce where you stay friends afterword and everyone poops butterflies and rainbows... Imagine if shit gets ugly...

  • Brian Combs||

    About seven yours ago, I went through what was actually a fairly amicable divorce. That said, there were times when this would have sounded like a fantastic idea.

    And I never had any interest in killing her.

  • ||

    I hate my wife's second husband so much I literally get sick sometimes.

  • Old Mexican||

    You could sue him under the argument that his presence is detrimental to your well being. If the Judge does not budge, you can always say that that is the exact argument used to create the EPA...

  • ||

    You make me just as ill as you make yourself. Thank god your wife is always there to felch me when I'm down.

  • ||

    How much can you afford?

  • Paul||

    What the eff is going on with Reason's spam filter: here's what's getting rejected as 'spam':

    "Community property, baby, community property..."

    Singularity my ass...

  • ||

    Speaking like a pimp is spam i guess...

  • ||

    Repeat after me (well, after T):

    He wants half the cash equivalent credited towards her half of the settlement.

    And why shouldn't he? She's keeping the boobs, after all, and they cost good (community property) money.

    How is this different than if she was keeping the house, and half the value got credited to her side of the settlement?

    The valuation problem is trivially easy. They are worth what was paid for them.

  • Paul||

    You wouldn't throw in the bone of depreciation? Or wait, maybe there appreciation? He spent $8 large on the boobs, maybe she's more than $8k worth of increased marketability? Maybe he turned a Ford Festiva into a Lamborghini with a mere $8 thousand?

  • ||

    Let's say it wasn't boobs. What if he paid for her to get dentures? They sure as hell have a lasting value to quality of life. So, shouldn't that value be split on divorce?

  • MJ||

    "clearly cosmetic, elective, (and) non-necessary."

    I think dentures fall into the "necessary" category.

  • EJM||

    If I'm ever looking for laser procedures in NE Wisc., I'll know where to go.

    And, since the screen grab is from WLUK, I might as well toss in a link to the history of Ned the Dead.

  • Mad Max||

    This is a good thread to re-post my quotation from G. K. Chesterton's prophetic 1920 book The Superstition of Divorce:

    'Modern education is founded on the principle that a parent is more likely to be cruel than anybody else. It passes over the obvious fact that he is less likely to be cruel than anybody else. Anybody may happen to be cruel; but the first chances of cruelty come with the whole colourless and indifferent crowd of total strangers and mechanical mercenaries, whom it is now the custom to call in as infallible agents of improvement; policemen, doctors, detectives, inspectors, instructors, and so on. They are automatically given arbitrary power because there are here and there such things as criminal parents; as if there were no such things as criminal doctors or criminal school-masters. A mother is not always judicious about her child's diet, so it is given into the control of Dr. Crippen. A father is thought not to teach his sons the purest morality; so they are put under the tutorship of Eugene Aram [an infamous English teacher hanged for the murder of a friend of his]. These celebrated criminals are no more rare in their respective professions than the cruel parents are in the profession of parenthood. But indeed the case is far stronger than this; and there is no need to rely on the case of such criminals at all. The ordinary weaknesses of human nature will explain all the weaknesses of bureaucracy and business government all over the world. The official need only be an ordinary man to be more indifferent to other people's children than to his own; and even to sacrifice other people's family prosperity to his own. He may be bored; he may be bribed; he may be brutal, for any one of the thousand reasons that ever made a man a brute. All this elementary common sense is entirely left out of account in our educational and social systems of today. It is assumed that the hireling will not flee, and that solely because he is a hireling. It is denied that the shepherd will lay down his life for the sheep; or for that matter, even that the she-wolf will fight for the cubs. We are to believe that mothers are inhuman; but not that officials are human. There are unnatural parents, but there are no natural passions; at least, there are none where the fury of King Lear dared to find them--in the beadle. Such is the latest light on the education of the young; and the same principle that is applied to the child is applied to the husband and wife. Just as it assumes that a child will certainly be loved by anybody except his mother, so it assumes that a man can be happy with anybody except the one woman he has himself chosen for his wife.'

  • Wicks Cherrycoke||

    Wow. Great quote. It should be posted on the wall at the headquarters of New Jersey's infamous Division of Youth and Family Services.

  • ||

    Quick, what's the "depreciated" value of a used condim?

    Astronomical, in some cases.

  • ||

    I hate my wife's second husband so much I literally get sick sometimes.

    If you'd move out of their basement, that wouldn't be such an issue.

  • hmm||

    A couple is divorcing in North Dakota, and he wants her boobs.

    I didn't know you could get sheep a boob job, or marry them in North Dakota.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Can't he just get half of each?

    And who has clear tittle to them?

  • NDer||

    He was offered at least double money to stop this ridiculous law suit. He is chosing to not stop this harrassment until he is destitute and she is as well.

  • Gynecomastia||

    Never heard such a story!

  • Man||

    What an incredible story! If only he knew how to lose man breasts fast, then hw wouldn't have a problem!

  • orgasmo femenino||

    It was happen more than five months but this fact is something that we could listen in the future, personally i think Mr. Isaacson should to have thought it before because it's not logic to claim the cost after a couple life now Ms. Tracy maybe can think in another solutions for her boots.

  • Breast Implants Prices||

    I have to say that this is really interesting.. It's not everyday you read about this kind of legal issue. Pretty sure they will settle things in better agreement soon as Mr. and Mrs. Isaacson realize what's best to get on with their separate lives. Good piece! Thanks for sharing!


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.