Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

Bora Horza

Ex-Wife Awarded £300K - 20 Years After Divorce!

Recommended Posts

I always read behind the headline in these cases as whilst the top line may seem ridiculous if you drill below this it may have an element of fairness.

In this case whilst it's not mentioned here IIRC after they split she brought up their child / children with zero to no maintenance payments from him; and that's what she's retrospectively claiming for.

If it was half his fortune or millions that would be silly but £300k doesn't seem unreasonable to me; it lets her buy a modest home that she would have had if they hadn't split.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always read behind the headline in these cases as whilst the top line may seem ridiculous if you drill below this it may have an element of fairness.

In this case whilst it's not mentioned here IIRC after they split she brought up their child / children with zero to no maintenance payments from him; and that's what she's retrospectively claiming for.

If it was half his fortune or millions that would be silly but £300k doesn't seem unreasonable to me; it lets her buy a modest home that she would have had if they hadn't split.

Maybe, but I thought she never told him about the kid, and he never had the chance to be involved in the kids life. Also, she claimed for £1.9 million.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But she didn't go after him for maintenance payments. You could also argue he should have made them of his free will - and then this probably wouldn't have happened.

The £300k is not a huge amount in regards to his wealth - but he made that long after they split up.

So is it fair that she cannot be bothered to file for maintenence for 20 years - then change her mind ? And then get - I doubt anyone would disagree - more than she wuold have got if he hadn't been a multi millionaire ?

I don't think so. It's not the most shocking divorce settlment I have ever see. But I also don't think it is fair.

£300 a month for 18 years is £65k. Looks like she got an extra £235k just because he made himself money long after they split up. I don't think thats right. And that would go if the roles were reversed too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She claimed for £1.9m but was told that was ridiculous.

So £65k basic, say £100k, plus a £200k premium because he is very rich and won't notice it. The latter is iffy I grant you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but I thought she never told him about the kid, and he never had the chance to be involved in the kids life. Also, she claimed for £1.9 million.

Surely he would have known? I'm not saying that you're wrong but that I can see her case as being reasonable IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah good point - headlines can be very alarmist/misleading.

I didn't realise she had a son with him. In this case a fairly reasonable award then, especially as £300k isn't going cause hardship to a man of his wealth.

Although I would be wary about this creating a precedent that would affect people on much more modest incomes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely he would have known? I'm not saying that you're wrong but that I can see her case as being reasonable IMO.

Why would he if she never told him? I think if you're paying maintenance you should be entitled to some degree of access (if you are not legitimately considered a risk to the well being of the child). If she deliberately avoided her obligation to grant him some access, she then shouldn't be able to lay claim on any obligation of his to contribute financially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah good point - headlines can be very alarmist/misleading.

I didn't realise she had a son with him. In this case a fairly reasonable award then, especially as £300k isn't going cause hardship to a man of his wealth.

Although I would be wary about this creating a precedent that would affect people on much more modest incomes.

The whole story is very slanted, making a point of the criminal and drug convictions of one of her other children is a bit "What?".

If I had only read that story on the case then I would think it a properly mental decision and the comments follow that path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would he if she never told him? I think if you're paying maintenance you should be entitled to some degree of access (if you are not legitimately considered a risk to the well being of the child). If she deliberately avoided her obligation to grant him some access, she then shouldn't be able to lay claim on any obligation of his to contribute financially.

I don't know, and I'm not about to google to disprove you. I am saying that on the face of it the settlement does not appear to be wildly unreasonable.

Unlike the many footballer divorces where she gets the money and the house and he gets bankruptcy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main issue here (from what I can tell) is that there was no maintenance agreement originally. There is nothing unusual in this case in that regard, if you don't come to a financial agreement when you divorce you are entitled to do so some time in the future, that's well know from a legal stand point and people are strongly advised to do so for this very reason.

Basically he either did it on the cheap originally or didn't care to do it legally and formally originally when he had the chance and has now paid the price.

Now don't get men wrong I do think it's a bit ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was checking on your pre-edited piece gilf about a child.

Wiki says they met in 81, had a son in 83, and divorced in 92.

Yes you are correct which is why I removed it, didn't mean to misinform and nobody else had commented in the mean time.

Checked another article and it does explicitly mention it there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes you are correct which is why I removed it, didn't mean to misinform and nobody else had commented in the mean time.

Checked another article and it does explicitly mention it there.

Which makes it very strange that it's not even mentioned in the article that they had a son; surely it's one of the key facts of the case?

I was beginning to doubt my own memory rather than trying to prove you wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If i remember rightly, He couldn't even produce evidence of a financial settlement at the time of divorce.

It is wrong because maintenance is paid to for the child not the parent and if i remember from another article the son now works for his father and so he is doing his bit in this sense.

its a very strange case, i suspect the judge didn't really now what to do with it and offered her some (of the ex's money) to go away.

In that sense it is a bit like pensions, they have no idea what to do with thos either and they're value is often different by a factor of 3 depending on whose financial expert witness is asked

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The presence of a son is immaterial. The family court system will NEVER give custody to the father, unless the mother is a murdering paedo, and even then it is touch and go.

This means, effectively, that the father never had the option of taking the child and enjoying the time of youth and adolescence, even if he wanted to. Think of it as if every time you left a job, you had to hand back your company phone AND you had to continue to pay the monthly bill for 18 years. No choice. Don't call it maintenance. Call it theft with menaces

The day the courts start making a PROPER assessment of who would be the best parent, using unbiased assessors, I'd have some agreement with their being a financial burden on the non-custody parent.

Splitting monies only makes some sort of sense if both partners helped to build that wealth. She did nothing. She deserves nothing.

In fact, if I was Solomon I would fine her for being a shitty parent in producing a fecked up kid.

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:   108 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.