Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
worried1

Courts Out Of Touch With House Prices

Recommended Posts

I can't link to the original staory because it is behind the Times paywall, but it is this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559843/Dont-let-penny-Ill-cut-135million-Bob-Builder-tycoon-warns-daughter-bitter-2m-divorce-battle-husband.html

Basically, a standard divorce case with a rich wife (through family money) not wanting to give the husband anything.

In the Times coverage, the husband claims that he will be left 'destitute' despite having the ability to earn £50k+ a year. His reasoning is that he would have to buy or rent a home in central London to be near his kids.

Obviously, he doesn't really need to be in central London, but the judge commented 'Most people who earn £50,000 a year aren't finding themselves trying to establish a life where those children have a certain quality of life they are experiencing with their mother somewhere else'

He talks about a £50k salary as if it buys you a luxury London lifestyle. It is a good salary compared to most in the country (or even region) but when you are competing with oligarchs at one end and benefit claimants at the other, I don't think it buys a very secure lifestyle in London for someone that has just come out of a divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't link to the original staory because it is behind the Times paywall, but it is this one:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2559843/Dont-let-penny-Ill-cut-135million-Bob-Builder-tycoon-warns-daughter-bitter-2m-divorce-battle-husband.html

Basically, a standard divorce case with a rich wife (through family money) not wanting to give the husband anything.

In the Times coverage, the husband claims that he will be left 'destitute' despite having the ability to earn £50k+ a year. His reasoning is that he would have to buy or rent a home in central London to be near his kids.

Obviously, he doesn't really need to be in central London, but the judge commented 'Most people who earn £50,000 a year aren't finding themselves trying to establish a life where those children have a certain quality of life they are experiencing with their mother somewhere else'

He talks about a £50k salary as if it buys you a luxury London lifestyle. It is a good salary compared to most in the country (or even region) but when you are competing with oligarchs at one end and benefit claimants at the other, I don't think it buys a very secure lifestyle in London for someone that has just come out of a divorce.

With 50k he can easily rent in a suburb and get the train to see his children. The last train from Charing Cross leaves after midnight, why can't he get that to Orpington or somewhere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That story is more about a psychopathic father. I know someone like him and feel absolute pity for his adult kids. Look at the woman in the story; kept in a cage and absolutely controlled even at forty. no means of her own and probably no skills. Most parents want their kids to be independent ;not these nutters. Who else would get their dad involved in their own divorce.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 50k he can easily rent in a suburb and get the train to see his children. The last train from Charing Cross leaves after midnight, why can't he get that to Orpington or somewhere?

He definitely could do that, but the part that made me laugh was that the judge assumed that anyone earning £50k should have built up a secure lifestyle that is robust enough to go through a divorce.

I just don't think that is the case in London any more, and hasn't been for quite some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 50k he can easily rent in a suburb and get the train to see his children. The last train from Charing Cross leaves after midnight, why can't he get that to Orpington or somewhere?

Or as a real life example, I was flat sharing in Chiswick a few years ago, and one of the flatmates was a guy going through a messy divorce. The ex-Mrs had the million pound plus house in Chiswick and he paid £550pm sharing with us down the road, so he could be close to the kids, take them to school etc. When it was his turn for the kids to stay, they stayed over in his room or he took them away for the weekend to see other family etc. I know it's not peoples ideal scenario, but it's what people do (in the private sector anyway, I'm sure this would breach some human rights laws for those socially housed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or as a real life example, I was flat sharing in Chiswick a few years ago, and one of the flatmates was a guy going through a messy divorce. The ex-Mrs had the million pound plus house in Chiswick and he paid £550pm sharing with us down the road, so he could be close to the kids, take them to school etc. When it was his turn for the kids to stay, they stayed over in his room or he took them away for the weekend to see other family etc. I know it's not peoples ideal scenario, but it's what people do (in the private sector anyway, I'm sure this would breach some human rights laws for those socially housed).

I agree, and to be honest I don't think he has (or should) have a leg to stand on. The quote from his lawyer says it all:

"Mr Limata has described the embarrassment and disappointment of the accomodation he could offer his children"

Who cares? It is not as if it is actually going to be dangerous - £50k might not provide the luxury lifestyle that the judge seems to think it will, but it is liveable.

The other interesting point is that the husband is not actually working at the moment, the £50k figure is what he 'could' earn if he went back to work. It is basically a couple both living off of her father's money and neither of them want to change that. She is the lucky one who won't have to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He definitely could do that, but the part that made me laugh was that the judge assumed that anyone earning £50k should have built up a secure lifestyle that is robust enough to go through a divorce.

I just don't think that is the case in London any more, and hasn't been for quite some time.

I read your bolded bit as the judge saying that you wouldn't usually have one person raising kids on 50k while the other person lives on Connaught Square next door to the Blairs.

She's on a bit of a sticky wicket IMO. She's asking the judge to not give hubby anything on the basis that she'll be down to her last few million and daddy says he'll give his wonga to the dogs' home.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your bolded bit as the judge saying that you wouldn't usually have one person raising kids on 50k while the other person lives on Connaught Square next door to the Blairs.

+1

I think the comments have been misinterpreted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your bolded bit as the judge saying that you wouldn't usually have one person raising kids on 50k while the other person lives on Connaught Square next door to the Blairs.

Sorry, I messed up the first post as I was copying it from the physical paper. It was actually the husband's lawyer who said that bolded part. The judge said that it was absurd that anyone on £50k a year could not provide for the children after a divorce, making it sound like the husband could just rent the place next door.

She's on a bit of a sticky wicket IMO. She's asking the judge to not give hubby anything on the basis that she'll be down to her last few million and daddy says he'll give his wonga to the dogs' home.

She would be, but as long as the pre-nup holds then she will get what she wants.

The sense of entitlement on her side is pretty shocking as well - saying that she'd 'need at least £3m' to afford another house in another part of London. Even with house prices as they are, £3m buys you quite a lot outside of the super-prime areas.

Edited by worried1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I messed up the first post as I was copying it from the physical paper. It was actually the husband's lawyer who said that bolded part. The judge said that it was absurd that anyone on £50k a year could not provide for the children after a divorce, making it sound like the husband could just rent the place next door.

She would be, but as long as the pre-nup holds then she will get what she wants.

The sense of entitlement on her side is pretty shocking as well - saying that she'd 'need at least £3m' to afford another house in another part of London. Even with house prices as they are, £3m buys you quite a lot outside of the super-prime areas.

The Mail article didn't mention a pre nup. If there is one then it's a very different kettle of fish. On the one hand more fool him for not ensuring he was put on his feet in the event of divorce. And shame on her for keeping a bloke as a pet and then chucking him out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Mail article didn't mention a pre nup. If there is one then it's a very different kettle of fish. On the one hand more fool him for not ensuring he was put on his feet in the event of divorce. And shame on her for keeping a bloke as a pet and then chucking him out.

I did think it was very different reporting in the Mail and the Times. It is a shame that I couldn't link directly to the article that I had read!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He does seem to feel entitled. When I worked in London, I traveled to Lancaster once a month to see my sprogs, no biggie. One time I'd got the train to Lancaster on the Saturday morning, spent the day with the kids and then went to Liverpool to spend the rest of the weekend with my ma. We were watching some doc about divorced guys...'Every month, Alex makes the 200 mile round trip to see his young daughter'...Says my ma 'Oh the poor soul'...Gee thanks ma. :)

Most kids don't care about the access accommodation, they just want to be with their dad. Once I was back in Liverpool, they'd stay the access weekend with me in a bedsit, they thought it was cool.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The sense of entitlement on her side is pretty shocking as well - saying that she'd 'need at least £3m' to afford another house in another part of London. Even with house prices as they are, £3m buys you quite a lot outside of the super-prime areas.

They live in a different world to the rest of us simpletons hence the budget of 3m . when daddy has 100m+ can you blame her

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or as a real life example, I was flat sharing in Chiswick a few years ago, and one of the flatmates was a guy going through a messy divorce. The ex-Mrs had the million pound plus house in Chiswick and he paid £550pm sharing with us down the road, so he could be close to the kids, take them to school etc. When it was his turn for the kids to stay, they stayed over in his room or he took them away for the weekend to see other family etc. I know it's not peoples ideal scenario, but it's what people do (in the private sector anyway, I'm sure this would breach some human rights laws for those socially housed).

Perfectly mirrors my life a few years back (apart from the million pound house lol), living in a shared house in my 30s, ex in the former matrimonial home, me paying full-time nursery fees for little 'un (for continuity of care), no space for her to stay overnight so every 3rd week taking her to my parents for a long weekend, using up days of my annual leave. I did what I had to do ... it was a sh1t time, really bad but I valued my daughters relationship and emotional bond more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfectly mirrors my life a few years back (apart from the million pound house lol), living in a shared house in my 30s, ex in the former matrimonial home, me paying full-time nursery fees for little 'un (for continuity of care), no space for her to stay overnight so every 3rd week taking her to my parents for a long weekend, using up days of my annual leave. I did what I had to do ... it was a sh1t time, really bad but I valued my daughters relationship and emotional bond more.

I am sorry to hear you hear a bad time, but good for you that valued your daughter so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   205 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.