FabSwingers.com forum: ex-wife wins divorce cash battle

By *abio OP Man
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

it is a fascinating case.......

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

couple got married...... had a child, dviorced.... then a decade later he starts a business which takes off and becomes a multi-millionaire

so should she be entitled to any of that money?

.... i'm torn a bit.... i think she should be entitled to increases in child maintainance payments as she was the one looking after the child if that had not happened...... but other than that..... not a penny!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She shouldn't but the child is. Maintenance payments should be higher than before. The higher earner should pay for birthday parties, should buy the uniforms and new coat, shoes and bag for back to school. Anything that's a particular expense should be covered by the higher earner.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She definitely shouldn't but for his child's sake I would like to think he would give her something on top of child maintenance just to improve the overall life of his child's. For instance pay of her mortgage if she has one, that amount of money per month could improve the life of his child's alot. However if she is in a relationship and living with somebody else, not a penny apart from increase to child support costs

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If he was able to set up his business because of the fact his ex wife was looking after his child then I do think she is entitled to something.

He might not have a successful business if he had had to look after the child.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Does not matter decision made by highest court in land all 5 in favour.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

it sort of goes against the grain at first glance but not aware of the details of what the arrangements where for maintenance post the split..

what her career prospects were etc..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She should be entitled, yes. The child should continue to live in the lifestyle he/she would have enjoyed if the marriage hadn't failed. Why should the child suffer? There may be a break of career issue for the mother too - if her earning potential has been adversely affected by a career break to have, and then look after, their child, why shouldn't that be reflected in any divorce settlement? Presumably she would have been some sort of support for her partner while he made the business a success as well. Shouldn't that also be factored in too? Matt

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Should he have settled the divorce long before he made his money?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"She should be entitled, yes. The child should continue to live in the lifestyle he/she would have enjoyed if the marriage hadn't failed. Why should the child suffer? There may be a break of career issue for the mother too - if her earning potential has been adversely affected by a career break to have, and then look after, their child, why shouldn't that be reflected in any divorce settlement? Presumably she would have been some sort of support for her partner while he made the business a success as well. Shouldn't that also be factored in too? Matt"

I was sort of trying to say this but I think you articulated it better

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

I can't see how 'she' should be entitled to a penny. The child is a different matter, but since he must be at least 20 now, I can't even see how even this can count for anything.

It'll be interesting how much she actually gets. It seems more like a 'prinicple of claims not being time-limited' has been established rather than an actual entitlement to cash.

Nevertheless, there'll be plenty of people looking over their shoulders, and a bonanza for the lawyers as usual.

Mr ddc

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *odareyouMan
over a year ago

not far from iceland,,,,,, tescos is nearer though :-) (near leeds)

From the bits you've posted.... Ie it's a decade later when he starts the business I'm inclined to say no...

The child maintenance I would have expected to have increased as his wealth / earnings had risen.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What he shouldn't do is just be the treater, he should make sure the child is totally provided for so the mother can be a big more relaxed with her money. My ex does this perfectly, he takes my daughter to Alton towers and stays in the hotel for 2 nights or takes her to peppa pig world or Lego land or anywhere that costs a couple of 100 quid. Stuff that I can't afford to do because I buy all her food all her clothes, pay for all her classes, buy all the uniform, the new shoes and bags.

He'll have her once a week on a Saturday overnight, they'll pop to tesco and she'll ask for a monster high doll which range from £20-£30 and he'll buy it. She comes shopping with me and asks and I have to say no you're not having toys for no reason, she's 5 now and will say "daddy would buy it for me" aargh, annoys me!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ce kingMan
over a year ago

montreal

lol how about the russian's wife who won 4.2 billion i think from their divorce?thats just crazy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Ok read the article. It seems there was no financial settlement. The judge's dismissed her monetary claim for £1.9 million.

It does not sit right with me. But it stresses the point that marriage is more than living together. It's a legally binding contract and it seems the judges are taking the till death do us part seriously.

Bet he's gutted he did not settle 20 years ago for some new age candles and a charm braclet.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

"She should be entitled, yes. The child should continue to live in the lifestyle he/she would have enjoyed if the marriage hadn't failed. Why should the child suffer? "

The child did continue in the life he would have had, had the parents stayed together. It was the man who decided to give up being a new-age traveller and start a business, thereby bettering his prospects. She refused to let him have custody, thereby you could argue it was she who made the child suffer...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *abio OP Man
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

" Presumably she would have been some sort of support for her partner while he made the business a success as well. Shouldn't that also be factored in too? Matt"

see if the business had been going at the time they were divorced, i would have agreed with you....

but this business was only set up a good 10 years after they were divorced....

there is not suggestion in any way that he wasn't paying child maintainance ... and if he wasn't paying more than absolutely i agree he should have been....

but it just feels odd that so long after she is still entitled to part of his future earnings......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

but it just feels odd that so long after she is still entitled to part of his future earnings......"

Sadly part of our 'entitlement' culture, fueled by lawyers on legal aid.

Let's face it, none of us could afford to take a case to the Supreme Court, just people who are either extremely rich or penniless!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The son is question will be 34 this year, so the judgment, it seems, is about compensating the ex-wife for the years she alone brought up the child.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *allipygousMan
over a year ago

Leicester

"Ok read the article. It seems there was no financial settlement. The judge's dismissed her monetary claim for £1.9 million.

Bet he's gutted he did not settle 20 years ago for some new age candles and a charm braclet."

At least you read the article before commenting, unlike many of the above.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think the child should benefit, but not the ex wife.

Life happens, situations change. You and only you are responsible for your life and shouldn't expect others to owe you something just because you have previously had a relationship with them.

Relationships will never be 100% equal.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I've actually met dale several times, he's a very affable person, slightly eccentric and as genuine as they come!.

Unfortunately divorce battles always bring the worse out in anyone, particularly when there's money involved.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I don't think she should get any money seeing as they have been divorced for 10 years, doesn't make sense at all.

just give her money for the kid, but not more than anyone else does it should be up to him, she sounds greedy, and a money grabber.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *erbyDalesCplCouple
over a year ago

Derbyshire

"Ok read the article. It seems there was no financial settlement. The judge's dismissed her monetary claim for £1.9 million.

Bet he's gutted he did not settle 20 years ago for some new age candles and a charm braclet.

At least you read the article before commenting, unlike many of the above."

Hope I'm not lumped in with that statement!

Not only did I read it, but I read it enough to know the judges have not thrown out her claim, but ruled she can take it back to the Family Court. Just that she shouldn't expect anywhere near what she's asking for.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I don't think she should get any money seeing as they have been divorced for 10 years, doesn't make sense at all.

just give her money for the kid, but not more than anyone else does it should be up to him, she sounds greedy, and a money grabber."

That's the world we live in, claims, sueing, blame culture etc

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"Ok read the article. It seems there was no financial settlement. The judge's dismissed her monetary claim for £1.9 million.

Bet he's gutted he did not settle 20 years ago for some new age candles and a charm braclet.

At least you read the article before commenting, unlike many of the above."

have to assume that you have also read the article before commenting..?

or are you just commenting on the commenters..?

not sure thats a real word but you get my gist..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *allipygousMan
over a year ago

Leicester

"Ok read the article. It seems there was no financial settlement. The judge's dismissed her monetary claim for £1.9 million.

Bet he's gutted he did not settle 20 years ago for some new age candles and a charm braclet.

At least you read the article before commenting, unlike many of the above.

Hope I'm not lumped in with that statement!

Your posts separate you from the "many".

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The child's 30 odd!.

I think any money for up bringing ended years ago

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *illwill69uMan
over a year ago

moston

"it is a fascinating case.......

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

couple got married...... had a child, dviorced.... then a decade later he starts a business which takes off and becomes a multi-millionaire

so should she be entitled to any of that money?

according to the 11 oclock news it was not 10 years... It was 30 years ago, and it is not a share of a business she wants but 1.9 million of a lottery win!

If this is correct then it is outrageous that the supreme court thinks she is entitled to anything!...

Maybe we guys should check to see if any of the women we lived with in the 70's and 80's are worth anything and demand half... Or would that be chauvinistic?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *allipygousMan
over a year ago

Leicester

"Ok read the article. It seems there was no financial settlement. The judge's dismissed her monetary claim for £1.9 million.

Bet he's gutted he did not settle 20 years ago for some new age candles and a charm braclet.

At least you read the article before commenting, unlike many of the above.

have to assume that you have also read the article before commenting..?

or are you just commenting on the commenters..?

not sure thats a real word but you get my gist.. "

It was only after reading the article that it became apparent that many who commented before my initial post hadn't bothered to do so.

So, yes to your first question.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"it is a fascinating case.......

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

couple got married...... had a child, dviorced.... then a decade later he starts a business which takes off and becomes a multi-millionaire

so should she be entitled to any of that money?

according to the 11 oclock news it was not 10 years... It was 30 years ago, and it is not a share of a business she wants but 1.9 million of a lottery win!

If this is correct then it is outrageous that the supreme court thinks she is entitled to anything!...

Maybe we guys should check to see if any of the women we lived with in the 70's and 80's are worth anything and demand half... Or would that be chauvinistic?"
.

If he won the lottery it would be the first time I've heard that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

I think there was a lottery winner. Who had a similar issue.

The thing is it's not that they just lived together. They got married. Therefore there is a legal process as it's a legal contract.

I think she is a bit of a chancer. But it's not like you can do this with anyone. Years ago they got married and signed that they would share their lives. If the divorce has no paper to stop that. Ie further financial claims against each other then I assume that is why the court allowed the appeal.

In the end she may only get thousands rather than millions. The family court will have to judge what would have been reasonable.

They could decide to pay up to say 10 years post divorce. At which point he may have had little.

In the end the legal bill will take a big chunk out of it all.

Very messy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Greedy bitch

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No one has yet ruled on her claim, merely her ability to make a claim. Its not groundbreaking or even surprising.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just let her have all the scrap metal in the backyard. He could even offer to deliver it to her.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If he was able to set up his business because of the fact his ex wife was looking after his child then I do think she is entitled to something.

He might not have a successful business if he had had to look after the child. "

Good point! I love looking after my kids - but it certainly makes a huge difference to the number of hours I can work and therefore the amount of money I can earn! Xx

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Turn it around.would they guy be entitled to it. No! No she shouldn't but should pay enough to support his child not her

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" Presumably she would have been some sort of support for her partner while he made the business a success as well. Shouldn't that also be factored in too? Matt

see if the business had been going at the time they were divorced, i would have agreed with you....

but this business was only set up a good 10 years after they were divorced....

there is not suggestion in any way that he wasn't paying child maintainance ... and if he wasn't paying more than absolutely i agree he should have been....

but it just feels odd that so long after she is still entitled to part of his future earnings......"

Apologies. Misread. Yes, that the business was started after the divorce changes things

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

All entitlements should go direct to the child in any breakup.

I never took a penny of my childrens child support.

I had control of it as they were small, clothes, clubs, school travel, what remained became the pocket money.

Although i bought them up, it was money from father to child.

Her

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff

"If he was able to set up his business because of the fact his ex wife was looking after his child then I do think she is entitled to something.

He might not have a successful business if he had had to look after the child. "

You hit the nail on the head so few people fail to see. She might have started her own business if she wasn't the child rearer. Women constantly give up careers, even now, for childcare, while men hardly do it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

If the court did not close on financial limits then it open for ever. Anyone how has went to court when you split don't close future financial clams. Around 90% are still open. So don't wish for the loto up if you never closed the cash side with your ex. Kids or not. You may find yourself having to give them half of what you won. I wonder where my ex is now lmao

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm currently going through divorce, we've agreed a settlement figure and im having a consent order which details a clean break Claus, if I win the lottery one minute after its signed then I keep the lot.

With this case he should of settled financially at divorce, as previously stated the child payments long ago finished, if he continued to pay maintenance up to eighteen then this woman's claim is ludicrous.

Not all women are the same thank god but this one is a greedy cow who should morally be told to go fuck herself.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If he was able to set up his business because of the fact his ex wife was looking after his child then I do think she is entitled to something.

He might not have a successful business if he had had to look after the child.

She's had the last ten years to do that (the "kid" is in his early thirties now). She hasn't built up a career. She hasn't really done anything. Apart from brood on what she's missed out on. He wanted a better life than living in an old ambulance in a field. She didn't, hence the split. I get the feeling that ambulance had been a bit nippy these last few months.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

This Man is obviously an utter utter Bastard, How very dare he change his life for the better, He should be forced to give 50% of His earnings to the poor destitute little woman He abandoned and 60% To the Adult offspring he Sired.

Oh and of course he should be made liable for all court costs.

Chinesewhispers Gimp

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"...

Not all women are the same thank god but this one is a greedy cow who should morally be told to go fuck herself.

This!!!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

I haven't read the thread. As I understand it the judge has given her leave to make the claim.

She is very unlikely to get £1.9m but by the judge giving leave to make the claim the line is to sort this out between you quick, your abandoned family deserve something.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I haven't read the thread. As I understand it the judge has given her leave to make the claim.

She is very unlikely to get £1.9m but by the judge giving leave to make the claim the line is to sort this out between you quick, your abandoned family deserve something.

But why do they deserve anything? They were divorced years ago. Their son is an adult. The guy has moved on and done well for himself. She should move on and leave him alone.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *inaTitzTV/TS
over a year ago

Titz Towers, North Notts

"I haven't read the thread. As I understand it the judge has given her leave to make the claim.

She is very unlikely to get £1.9m but by the judge giving leave to make the claim the line is to sort this out between you quick, your abandoned family deserve something.

But why do they deserve anything? They were divorced years ago. Their son is an adult. The guy has moved on and done well for himself. She should move on and leave him alone. "

It's likely that any award given, should she win the case, will take that into account.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I haven't read the thread. As I understand it the judge has given her leave to make the claim.

She is very unlikely to get £1.9m but by the judge giving leave to make the claim the line is to sort this out between you quick, your abandoned family deserve something.

But why do they deserve anything? They were divorced years ago. Their son is an adult. The guy has moved on and done well for himself. She should move on and leave him alone.

It's likely that any award given, should she win the case, will take that into account.

But why should she get anything at all?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I haven't read the thread. As I understand it the judge has given her leave to make the claim.

She is very unlikely to get £1.9m but by the judge giving leave to make the claim the line is to sort this out between you quick, your abandoned family deserve something.

But why do they deserve anything? They were divorced years ago. Their son is an adult. The guy has moved on and done well for himself. She should move on and leave him alone.

It's likely that any award given, should she win the case, will take that into account.

"
.

That seems like a very easy solution.

Couldn't one at least be shot or at least wounded...

You know to keep the fanatics happy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a woman, this makes me uncomfortable. Don't know all the facts of the case, so just going off what I've heard. Yes the child should probably get more. But the ex-wife, if this business has been built long after they were separated, then no I don't think so.

If I were to get divorced, I just don't think I should be entitled to a crack at my husband's future income or earnings, if they relate to a period after we'd separated. And since I have no children, i don't think I ought to have a claim to any of his money at all. I feel it reinforces perceptions of women as dependants, victims, needing to be supported by men.

But then I wouldn't put myself in a position where I was financially dependent on a man to start with.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"I haven't read the thread. As I understand it the judge has given her leave to make the claim.

She is very unlikely to get £1.9m but by the judge giving leave to make the claim the line is to sort this out between you quick, your abandoned family deserve something.

But why do they deserve anything? They were divorced years ago. Their son is an adult. The guy has moved on and done well for himself. She should move on and leave him alone.

It's likely that any award given, should she win the case, will take that into account.

But why should she get anything at all? "

It's a legal technicality that is being used and the 5 judges are upholding.

Stated above, if you don't reach a final settlement then you (either partner) can seek a claim. She was initially turned down but the higher court (the highest) has said she can make the claim

Whether I think it's morally right or not is another matter. Think of it as the tax avoidance stuff where it's not evasion but using the law to carry out the action.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The guy is a twat for not getting A Final Settlement order. I have been divorced 3 times and made sure these were in place each time.

She seems like a jealous gold digger.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

So.....playing devils advocate, imagine the wife had hooked up with a millionaire guy, would the husband get same treatment ?

I haven't read the full case etc but if he's a business man I would think he'd of looked after his children financially, legally she's entitled as I know from current solicitor discussions, but morally she paints herself as a gold digging blughhhh make me too mad to put into words

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"So.....playing devils advocate, imagine the wife had hooked up with a millionaire guy, would the husband get same treatment ?

Possibly not for hooking up with a millionaire but if she had made the money herself then yes, the same legal technicality would apply to the claim.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I watched this on the news tonight, just to clarify it was a divorce that happened 20 years ago, so the child in the marriage is now an adult. For all you unmarried people out there think of this when you may be considering marriage.....the monkey married a parasitic woman and Will be paying for it for the rest of his life due to the fact that the blood sucker is wanting to take his military pension....he certainly does not remember her standing next to him in Afghanistan....! The British justice system seems hell bent on screwing guys over forever...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"She shouldn't but the child is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uke olovingmanMan
over a year ago

Gravesend

"I don't think she should get any money seeing as they have been divorced for 10 years, doesn't make sense at all.

just give her money for the kid, but not more than anyone else does it should be up to him, she sounds greedy, and a money grabber."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?"

There is a law that prevents this. He never got the correct advice or paperwork to prevent this scenario.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?"

At the same time the tax evaders are stopped from legally not paying the bulk of their tax?

It's a legal technicality and she is using it just as Amazon and Jimmy Carr use the tax technicality.

If the divorce was a final settlement then she would have no claim now. So perhaps he will look at redress from his lawyer at the time.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *oxy_minxWoman
over a year ago

Scotland - Aberdeen

I haven't read the thread you posted, but did he make the money during the marriage or after?

Scottish law is different, as my cousin married moved in with him, had three kids and was entitled to nothing as he owned the house before they married despite them extending etc during the marriage, it's a funny old world

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?

There is a law that prevents this. He never got the correct advice or paperwork to prevent this scenario.

So sanction the lawyer for making a mess of it, to revisit a divorce after God knows how many years is a nonsense.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?

At the same time the tax evaders are stopped from legally not paying the bulk of their tax?

It's a legal technicality and she is using it just as Amazon and Jimmy Carr use the tax technicality.

If the divorce was a final settlement then she would have no claim now. So perhaps he will look at redress from his lawyer at the time.

Not sure I get the tax evasion analogy, but the lawyers seriously screwed up originally.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"it is a fascinating case.......

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

couple got married...... had a child, dviorced.... then a decade later he starts a business which takes off and becomes a multi-millionaire

so should she be entitled to any of that money?

Would she be willing to help him out if he was homeless and destitute ten years later?

I don't think so, so why should he be expected to pay up?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

What if he had gotten himself into huge debt instead of making millions...would she be liable for some of that debt as well? I very much doubt it...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

There was a similar case where the woman made a fortune after the divorce and her ex husband went after her for money. Total bollocks both ways.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I guess you can't blame her for trying, right?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?

At the same time the tax evaders are stopped from legally not paying the bulk of their tax?

It's a legal technicality and she is using it just as Amazon and Jimmy Carr use the tax technicality.

If the divorce was a final settlement then she would have no claim now. So perhaps he will look at redress from his lawyer at the time.

Not sure I get the tax evasion analogy, but the lawyers seriously screwed up originally."

It's a legal technicality that allows tax evasion. This technicality exists in divorce. Close the loopholes and there is no story.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Was he alowd to see the child some women claim the child to be there property and courts agree with them should he ask for lost years missing out on the child (a bitter farther)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Sometimes the law is an ass. At what point does someone with common sense say that this is madness and stop wasting everyone's time?

At the same time the tax evaders are stopped from legally not paying the bulk of their tax?

It's a legal technicality and she is using it just as Amazon and Jimmy Carr use the tax technicality.

If the divorce was a final settlement then she would have no claim now. So perhaps he will look at redress from his lawyer at the time.

Not sure I get the tax evasion analogy, but the lawyers seriously screwed up originally.

It's a legal technicality that allows tax evasion. This technicality exists in divorce. Close the loopholes and there is no story.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

i would say no at a glance and as jk would say this should have been sorted years ago -

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

Listen to Woman's Hour on listen again for a really good explanation of this and, more importantly, how to avoid it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Listen to Woman's Hour on listen again for a really good explanation of this and, more importantly, how to avoid it.

Its very simple. As part of the divorce settlement, you sign an agreement that it is a full financial settlement. Job done.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ath_Neil_bifunCouple
over a year ago

near cardiff

[Removed by poster at 12/03/15 12:43:14]

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"it is a fascinating case.......

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

couple got married...... had a child, dviorced.... then a decade later he starts a business which takes off and becomes a multi-millionaire

so should she be entitled to any of that money?

according to the 11 oclock news it was not 10 years... It was 30 years ago, and it is not a share of a business she wants but 1.9 million of a lottery win!

If this is correct then it is outrageous that the supreme court thinks she is entitled to anything!...

Maybe we guys should check to see if any of the women we lived with in the 70's and 80's are worth anything and demand half... Or would that be chauvinistic?"

chauvinistic, possibly. Likely...... absolutely not, these sort of claims only go one way (and am not a mysoginist)where on earh is a 30 year old classed as a child ? Judges and lawyers, live in a different world dont they

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rown_cock_edinMan
over a year ago

edinburgh

"She shouldn't but the child is. Maintenance payments should be higher than before. The higher earner should pay for birthday parties, should buy the uniforms and new coat, shoes and bag for back to school. Anything that's a particular expense should be covered by the higher earner.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bony in IvoryCouple
over a year ago

Black&White Utopia

Don't most Divorces these days ( once all financially agreed n settled, including maintainence, property and pension shares) Have a ' clean break' also added to avoid such claim years later?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

" Don't most Divorces these days ( once all financially agreed n settled, including maintainence, property and pension shares) Have a ' clean break' also added to avoid such claim years later?

This was years ago. She would be entitled to make the claim even fifty years after the divorce.

The peice on R4 said that with many doing DIY divorces they often don't put in a final settlement clause, leaving themselves open to such a claim in the future.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bony in IvoryCouple
over a year ago

Black&White Utopia

" Don't most Divorces these days ( once all financially agreed n settled, including maintainence, property and pension shares) Have a ' clean break' also added to avoid such claim years later?

This was years ago. She would be entitled to make the claim even fifty years after the divorce.

The peice on R4 said that with many doing DIY divorces they often don't put in a final settlement clause, leaving themselves open to such a claim in the future.

"
oppsy! Bet there will be more of these cases about from years back now then

and those who aint done the ' clean break ' more recently

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *L RogueMan
over a year ago

London

I am not getting married!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

The csa, as far as I'm led to believ can take 15% of his net wage . 20%for two kids and 25%for 3 and above kids . I that's after his tax and national insurance.

That's all he is obliged to pay.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

And, just cause his business is making a fortune doesn't mean he is too. He will be taking a weekly/monthly wage from that business. . . Any monies above that belongs to the business itself not him. . So I can't see anyone has a claim against its wealth.

I am quite happy to be corrected on the above.

If the business was founded after the divorce then his ex wife definitely doesn't have a claim.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *omaMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

I am quite happy to be corrected on the above.

If the business was founded after the divorce then his ex wife definitely doesn't have a claim.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Why shouldn't she be entitled to claim if her raising of the child enabled him to build his business?

Lord Wilson said Ms Wyatt, who lived in Lowestoft, Suffolk, Sunderland and the Forest of Dean, had raised her son through "16 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.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"And, just cause his business is making a fortune doesn't mean he is too. He will be taking a weekly/monthly wage from that business. . . Any monies above that belongs to the business itself not him. . So I can't see anyone has a claim against its wealth.

I am quite happy to be corrected on the above.

If the business was founded after the divorce then his ex wife definitely doesn't have a claim. "

Depends on the legal status of a company: a limited company and you're right. A sole trader IS the business, however, so there is no line between the person and the business.

I heard that the guy is worth 100 million. If so, he looks a bit mean fighting over 1.9 million, doesn't he? Why wouldn't he want to give a bit back to the woman who raised their child, the woman he once loved? I also heard that he had very little to do with his child after the split so perhaps the above posts should consider his behaviour more than his ex-wife's?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *cotbbtopMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

"If he was able to set up his business because of the fact his ex wife was looking after his child then I do think she is entitled to something.

He might not have a successful business if he had had to look after the child.

I agree. The law needs to be changed so that a divorce, after all the legalities are done, should be the end of the matter. This case is ludicrous and the ex-wife clearly has no shame.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *cotbbtopMan
over a year ago

Glasgow

I heard that the guy is worth 100 million. If so, he looks a bit mean fighting over 1.9 million, doesn't he? "

Not mean at all. She made no contribution to the success of the business. She only deserves condemnation.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Too tired to read the whole thread so this may have been said? She didn't seek a financial settlement at the time so the courts have given her leave to apply for one now. They haven't awarded her any money just allowed her to go to court with a claim now, that's all!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I heard that the guy is worth 100 million. If so, he looks a bit mean fighting over 1.9 million, doesn't he?

Not mean at all. She made no contribution to the success of the business. She only deserves condemnation."

Apparently he made no contribution to raising their child. I'd say he deserves more condemnation

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Too tired to read the whole thread so this may have been said? She didn't seek a financial settlement at the time so the courts have given her leave to apply for one now. They haven't awarded her any money just allowed her to go to court with a claim now, that's all!

Exactly!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *lshere77Man
over a year ago

Wigan

Same as usual, bloke gets stuffed....he has been paying for his child, if he is reasonable he would share his wealth with his children anyway.......courts get involved and shaft him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

"If he was able to set up his business because of the fact his ex wife was looking after his child then I do think she is entitled to something.

He might not have a successful business if he had had to look after the child.

I agree. The law needs to be changed so that a divorce, after all the legalities are done, should be the end of the matter. This case is ludicrous and the ex-wife clearly has no shame."

The legalities weren't done. They had never reached a financial resolution in their divorce and no financial order was made. In fact in 2012 she was awarded £125 000 by the courts and he appealed that - if he'd paid up and signed off all of this would be over and done. Since he's worth over £100 million you would have thought that 125 grand would be manageable.

The lesson this teaches is to go through all the steps the law has to offer to ensure nothing comes back to bite you on the bum.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Apparently the claim was made after 20 years..he started the business after 10. She lived on benefits and bought child up and he live on an old ambulance..then got the idea...5 judges agreed but stipulated she is entitled to something rather than 1.9 million claimed. They haven't stated their exact reasoning and it is presumed she may get a much smaller amount. The child being bought up in hardship would I guess needs recompense and also a duty of care. But does open up a can of worms.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago

Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound

"Same as usual, bloke gets stuffed....he has been paying for his child, if he is reasonable he would share his wealth with his children anyway.......courts get involved and shaft him."

That's not what is happening though. His ex wife has a legitimately legal claim, whether that is morally right or not, and has been given leave to make a claim. That is all. If she gets £1.9m I will scrub toilets for a week as it will be nowhere near that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"If he was able to set up his business because of the fact his ex wife was looking after his child then I do think she is entitled to something.

He might not have a successful business if he had had to look after the child.

I agree. The law needs to be changed so that a divorce, after all the legalities are done, should be the end of the matter. This case is ludicrous and the ex-wife clearly has no shame.

The lesson this teaches is to go through all the steps the law has to offer to ensure nothing comes back to bite you on the bum."

Sounds a charmer, doesn't he? Fighting over one eight hundredth of his wealth? His legal bill will exceed that. Not seeing or supporting his child too. Great guy

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As I understand it he paid nothing. I assume now he will pay what was reasonable at the time the child was being brought up not what he could afford now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

"Apparently the claim was made after 20 years..he started the business after 10. She lived on benefits and bought child up and he live on an old ambulance..then got the idea...5 judges agreed but stipulated she is entitled to something rather than 1.9 million claimed. They haven't stated their exact reasoning and it is presumed she may get a much smaller amount. The child being bought up in hardship would I guess needs recompense and also a duty of care. But does open up a can of worms.

It doesn't open up any can of worms. It's only a precedent for those who have not agreed a financial order as part of the divorce proceedings. In this case this was never done and later attempts by her to get one were contested by him.

The court has acknowledged and queried her delay in getting this sorted and has hinted that though she could be awarded up to £1.9 million it could also be a lower (much lower) amount.

But he has had very poor advice (or possibly ignored advice) whilst he was making his fortune. If he'd made a financial order and it had been written in that it was full and final this would not be happening and these figures would not be being discussed.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Same as usual, bloke gets stuffed....he has been paying for his child, if he is reasonable he would share his wealth with his children anyway.......courts get involved and shaft him."

Has he been paying for his child?

He hasn't be shafted, she hasn't been awarded a settlement, just given leave to apply for one. If he does get shafted it's his own stupid fault for not doing it properly in the first place.

There are instances where men do get the raw end of the deal in divorce cases, hanging your hat on this one isn't going to help that argument at all.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *empting Devil.Woman
over a year ago

Sheffield

"Same as usual, bloke gets stuffed....he has been paying for his child, if he is reasonable he would share his wealth with his children anyway.......courts get involved and shaft him.

Has he been paying for his child?

He hasn't be shafted, she hasn't been awarded a settlement, just given leave to apply for one. If he does get shafted it's his own stupid fault for not doing it properly in the first place.

There are instances where men do get the raw end of the deal in divorce cases, hanging your hat on this one isn't going to help that argument at all. "

During the child's childhood there wasn't any money which seems to be why no financial order was made. But after he started to make money he still didn't make a financial order. Which means that in legal terms she could still apply for one. Which she did. And was successful and awarded £125 000. Which he appealed and the ensuing legalities has lead to this.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

The timescale is an issue for me, if he started making his money while his child was small and didn't help pay living costs then yes, he may owe money.

Although they both should have sorted out the paperwork at the time of divorce, I don't think he should pay out from his future earnings. If he was in debt instead of minted, would she have to help with his debts?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

According to Wiki his legal bills are already running at half a million. By the time this is done, his legal bills will dwarf whatever award she gets.

They apparently separated in the mid 80s when the child was just a couple of years old but didn't divorce till 1992. He founded the company in 95. From what I heard, he didn't support the child or have much to do with him

She ultimately will get much less than she is claiming. It would have been simpler for all if he had made a final settlement on her much earlier in the matter. Not sure the case shows either person in a great light. He seems happier paying out a lot of money to lawyers rather than his ex who raised their child on her own for many years. He sounds like a weasel to me

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"According to Wiki his legal bills are already running at half a million. By the time this is done, his legal bills will dwarf whatever award she gets.

I've meet him a few times at green party conventions and alike (he actually is a donator to them).

He's definitely an eccentric but certainly very likeable, genuinely cares about environmental matters and seems to put his money where his mouth is.

I no little about his private life but I would imagine he could be ..awkward, however what he does or doesn't do with his son, is his matter, and I've no idea and neither has anyone on here whether he's paid not paid, seen him, not seen him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"According to Wiki his legal bills are already running at half a million. By the time this is done, his legal bills will dwarf whatever award she gets.

I've meet him a few times at green party conventions and alike (he actually is a donator to them).

He's definitely an eccentric but certainly very likeable, genuinely cares about environmental matters and seems to put his money where his mouth is.

Just quoting Matthew Wright from The Wright Stuff yesterday. As the programme can be sued for falsehoods uttered on air, I'm guessing it's true

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Back paid child support is a separate matter to a financial settlement.

If he owes back child support that is a cut and dried matter, he should pay it.

The financial settlement is more about the split of money that she should be owed from the relationship.

Now I'm sure I read he claims that he made a financial settlement at the time, but due to the passage of years neither he nor the courts hold the paperwork from that time.

Whether this is true or a smoke screen I have no idea.

But in terms of what money she would be owed from a financial settlement, I think it's pretty clear that will have to be calculated on the money he would have been able to pay during the time she was bringing up his son.

So it will depend on his worth up to the time his son turned 18.

Any further hardship from bringing up subsequent children will need to be shared by the other children's fathers.

He may not have seen his son in this time, but do we know why? Was he allowed access or just told to go away.

Like has been said already the lawyers are going to make the most money on this.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ushandkittyCouple
over a year ago

Gloucester

Sounds a charmer, doesn't he? Fighting over one eight hundredth of his wealth? His legal bill will exceed that. Not seeing or supporting his child too. Great guy"

when the lad turned 18 he went and lived with his dad.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ntimatediscretionMan
over a year ago

eaglescliffe

as soon as he got a job the child went to live with him... and has continued to do so, she had a further 3 kids by different blokes, one is a prostitute heroin addict in prison for burglary,.... the ex wife and all of her family have never worked....represents everything that wrong in this society...sponger thinking world owes her a living.... never ever worked....

the judge who ruled she was entitled to claim after 23 years is the same judge who said servicemen who were exposed to nuclear testing weren't allowed to claim because too much time had elapsed...his name is Lord justice Wilson

I think fathers should take responsibility for their kids, and likewise if a woman gives up her right to work to raise kids she should be entitled to be maintained....

but this is wrong on every level...

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"as soon as he got a job the child went to live with him... and has continued to do so, she had a further 3 kids by different blokes, one is a prostitute heroin addict in prison for burglary,.... the ex wife and all of her family have never worked....represents everything that wrong in this society...sponger thinking world owes her a living.... never ever worked....

I think fathers should take responsibility for their kids, and likewise if a woman gives up her right to work to raise kids she should be entitled to be maintained....

but this is wrong on every level..."

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

West Midlands

It's a bit odd granted

But I've no problem with the multi millionaire paying her back for raising his child when finally he could easily afford to

Let's be clear

If he had offered her enough for a small modest mortgage free home then this case wouldn't have gone to court

He was just greedy and being unreasonable

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

"It's a bit odd granted

But I've no problem with the multi millionaire paying her back for raising his child when finally he could easily afford to

Let's be clear

If he had offered her enough for a small modest mortgage free home then this case wouldn't have gone to court

He was just greedy and being unreasonable

And you know this for a fact. You have sat down with the woman and her lawyers at the time and she was ready to sign a waver for this amount. Or was it just an opening bid?

Why should she get a mortgage free home off his money???

She should get what she could have got had she claimed at the time of the divorce. Not what she thought she could get when things improved for him later.

When he was worth nothing she wanted nothing from him. Now he has money she wants some. I get it and she has the right to claim, but if I was judge I'd be assessing it on his wealth at the time of the split up until the child reached 18.

She is responsible for herself and if she has 3 other kids, they are not his responsibility and her status because she continued to have kids that society has paid for are not his concern either.

I can find her a home that's £40,000. That will be mortgage free, but that's not what she is hoping for.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Firstly, the Appeal Judges have only said that the woman is able to take her case to the local Family Court. Not that she is gonna win anything. Certainly not the £1.9m she is asking for. One Judge did intimate a "moderate mortgage free house" would be more likley though i can see no reason why she should get even that.

Secondly, wasn't there another case a few weeks ago where the Judge told a woman that an ex wasn't to be a meal ticket and she should go out and get herself a job?

That would have bearing on the woman in this case.

It's a travesty of justice if the woman gets anything.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ere-for-my-convenienceWoman
over a year ago

West Midlands

She's brought up his child without his help

Men need to appreciate that they must support their children and not shirk responsibilities

I've no need to sit with any bloody lawyers to understand that fact

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Secondly, wasn't there another case a few weeks ago where the Judge told a woman that an ex wasn't to be a meal ticket and she should go out and get herself a job?

That would have bearing on the woman in this case.

Or the Ray Parlour case where his ex wife was awarded a share of his future earning for kicking his arse into gear?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Secondly, wasn't there another case a few weeks ago where the Judge told a woman that an ex wasn't to be a meal ticket and she should go out and get herself a job?

That would have bearing on the woman in this case.

Or the Ray Parlour case where his ex wife was awarded a share of his future earning for kicking his arse into gear?"

That was an interesting case. Yeah, she kicked his arse into gear from when he was youth footballer, then throughout his successful career.

Plus IIRC she was awarded half the "surplus" only for the duration of his last contract, and told to invest that to provide for their future beyond that.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *iss_Samantha_LovecockTV/TS
over a year ago

bmth /poole sometimes blandford

she hasnt won anything yet ..just been told she can go to court with it

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

heard him being interviewed yesterday...lot more to it...which explained why the son chose to live with him...as a test case its interesting, and important, but from the interview,sounded like he'd provided a huge amount of support,and , though as a woman and should be on her side,i felt she was a bit nuts! previously tried to bring very bizarre cases against various people for some odd things!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *reasyontheeyesMan
over a year ago

out in the sticks

So if this guy had set up a business and it had failed and owed 10 million should his ex wife have to pay half his debt as well????? All fair in divorce NOT!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I heard that the guy is worth 100 million. If so, he looks a bit mean fighting over 1.9 million, doesn't he?

Not mean at all. She made no contribution to the success of the business. She only deserves condemnation.

Apparently he made no contribution to raising their child. I'd say he deserves more condemnation "

I often wonder if the kids are better off without any contact in the case of divorce. If the separation was acrimonious and the kids used as a tool to seek vengenace as they so often are how can that be good for the kid ?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Same as usual, bloke gets stuffed....he has been paying for his child, if he is reasonable he would share his wealth with his children anyway.......courts get involved and shaft him.

Has he been paying for his child?

He hasn't be shafted, she hasn't been awarded a settlement, just given leave to apply for one. If he does get shafted it's his own stupid fault for not doing it properly in the first place.

There are instances where men do get the raw end of the deal in divorce cases, hanging your hat on this one isn't going to help that argument at all. "

Think you've got this wrong. There are instances were men get a good deal but I think you'll find its more common for them to get royally shafted both financially and emotionally

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

Post new Message to Thread