Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

SarahBell

Divorce Not The End..

Recommended Posts

So who's paying for all these lawyers to play? In a world where even a lowly provincial solicitor costs hundreds of quid an hour, this'll make a big dent on a mere £100million fortune. And taxpayers are already bust :ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I understand that the raving bias of the divorce laws is designed to keep vast numbers of ex-wives of rich men off benefits (which makes some kind of sense) but success in this case would actively discourage any divorced man or woman from working all hours in a start-up business to make their fortune (which makes less sense).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never get married.

I'm very much a traditionalist and always assumed that marriage follows naturally from a long-term relationship but having seen ludicrously unfair divorce settlement after ludicrously unfair divorce settlement (and having a few quid put away) over the years I have gradually shifted to seeing it as giving the richer partner a huge disadvantage in the courts if it does break-up.

I wouldn't try to talk somebody out of it, but not for me. Though I don't go around saying that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's won...

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392

Edit: It seems they were just ruling on whether the case should be examined. The judge could presumably still tell her to get stuffed.

The BBC article is crap. It doesn't really explain what the case today was about. The BBC headline is very misleading.

It seems that she has just got the go-ahead to make a claim against him; she has yet to be awarded anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pair had a son, Dane, and lived a New Age traveller lifestyle before their eventual divorce, the court heard.

Lord Wilson said Ms Wyatt had raised her son through "sixteen years of real hardship".

Her claim was "legally recognisable" and not an "abuse of process", he said, although the £1.9m payout she had hoped to secure was too high an amount.

"It is obvious, even at this stage, that an award approaching that size is out of the question," he said.

Looking at that statement any award would presumably be tied to the costs of raising the child that he sired.

The Supreme Court Judge has already marked the Family Courts card with regard to the size of any payout in his ruling

It would be interesting to note what if anything he contributed to the raising of his son.

I wonder if the state might also be tempted to try to claw back any benefits paid out in support of his child.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The pair had a son, Dane, and lived a New Age traveller lifestyle before their eventual divorce, the court heard.

Lord Wilson said Ms Wyatt had raised her son through "sixteen years of real hardship".

Her claim was "legally recognisable" and not an "abuse of process", he said, although the £1.9m payout she had hoped to secure was too high an amount.

"It is obvious, even at this stage, that an award approaching that size is out of the question," he said.

Looking at that statement any award would presumably be tied to the costs of raising the child that he sired.

The Supreme Court Judge has already marked the Family Courts card with regard to the size of any payout in his ruling

It would be interesting to note what if anything he contributed to the raising of his son.

I wonder if the state might also be tempted to try to claw back any benefits paid out in support of his child.

This could get complicated

Worth bearing in mind these things dont always go the womans way as this case demonstrates

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-31587592

In this case the divorced father was paying maintenance and school fees but the judge decided that when the child was over 7 that the ex wife might want to try working for a living rather than bludging off her partner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems that she has just got the go-ahead to make a claim against him; she has yet to be awarded anything.

Exactly.

Mad woman sues ... oh look, he's got a hundred million ... rich pickings for m'learned friends to feast on. Of course we must give her leave to go ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I adhore women who are merely gold-diggers who use divorce to rob, IMPO, their ex husbands - especially those who do it many, many years later.

But, in this particular case, I think she actually deserves to win her case. I can see her point of view.

The problem now though is that, frankly, it will open the flood-gates for other women in similar circumstances. Not every woman will have an ex who is a millionaire but plenty will now be thinking today about whether they can get some more money off their ex of perhaps decades ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if thirty years after divorce you inherit a house in Putney or Richmond? Can your ex-partner reappear for a handout?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if thirty years after divorce you inherit a house in Putney or Richmond? Can your ex-partner reappear for a handout?

Here's what you do if she does, and her claims succeed.

Hire an actress, who claims that forty years ago, your ex-wife and another unknown man assaulted her. She will be believed, of course. Your ex will get a minimal prison sentence, as she has a pussy pass, but the actress then sues in civil court for damages against her, and her employers and anyone else within range. Actress gives you 75% of the proceeds, and enjoys her new-found victim status and publicity.

You come out with with a magnificent dish of cold revenge, and more than 50% of the inheritance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting should happen today, i am just going through the process of finding a lawyer to approve a prenuptial agreement i am writing with my soon to be wife. She sent hers to a solicitior who quoted a "fixed fee" of £500, when she sent the agreement with a breakdown of her assets (she is not poor), he instantly announced this was a specially complicated case and he would need to charge more...

there you have the problem in a nutshell, too many solicitors who think they have the right to take money off anyone who has some. This case is bizarre in two ways, the time scale (marriage ended more than 20 years ago, seperation was nearer 30 years ago) and the court records are lost so no one has any idea whether there was a clean break or not.....BTW the son left home at 18 in 2001 and now lives with his millionaire father.

The whole system (i have been through it and taken to the cleaners) is entirely run with two aims, feed the lawyers and save benefits. The needs of the children are what is used to justify the whole circus.

edit typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If he didn't pay anything towards the raising of his son for 16 years - then fair enough he should cough up something. He should have already. If he has paid a reasonable sum - then he should owe zero. The details in the story do not disclose this.

As for the amount she is asking - that is just sheer greed and sweet FA to do with what she needed to raise him to a decent standard of living.

My guess ? They are both dicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what you do if she does, and her claims succeed.

Hire an actress, who claims that forty years ago, your ex-wife and another unknown man assaulted her. She will be believed, of course. Your ex will get a minimal prison sentence, as she has a pussy pass, but the actress then sues in civil court for damages against her, and her employers and anyone else within range. Actress gives you 75% of the proceeds, and enjoys her new-found victim status and publicity.

You come out with with a magnificent dish of cold revenge, and more than 50% of the inheritance.

The flaw in that scheme is that the actress would then keep 100% of the reward and tell you to get lost. What could you do about it without confessing to involvement in the scheme?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW the son left home at 18 in 2001 and now lives with his millionaire father.

I know of a woman who married a man who turned out to be drunk/gambler/abusive. So she divorced the guy and took with her her 5 year old son whom she then brought up without any contact or financial support from the ex-husband. The ex husband made no attempt to keep in contact or support the child. Life was tough as it was in the 1950s/60s when there was not the social benefits that are available nowadays. But she worked very hard and gave her son a good life, fed and clothed him, etc.

The son grows up and resents his Mother. Blames her for everything that is wrong in his life and for taking him away from his father. So, off goes son in search of father he has not seen in several decades and totally sets out to destroy Mother's life. Very vindictive and nasty.

So the father gets a son whom he gave no financial or parental support to and the Mother, who loved the son, changed his nappies, looked after him when he was sick, worked hard to feed him and clothe him, etc, etc, was left with nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A conflation of adore and abhor? You really are mixed-up. ;)

Ha ha ha. I did take a second look at that after I had typed it but, my excuse, is that I have been out in the pouring rain cycling today and my brain is a bit soggy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   210 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.