That so? Interesting...
In that case, surely he would always have known a claim against future earnings/winnings was possible.
Unless we're going to argue for fixed maintenance or whatever regardless of future earnings?
£56m lotto winner must pay the ex who dumped him ten years ago
- Thread starter G-MAN2004
- Start date
That so? Interesting...
In that case, surely he would always have known a claim against future earnings/winnings was possible.
Unless we're going to argue for fixed maintenance or whatever regardless of future earnings?
I certainly wouldn't. If it were me in her situation then I'd have left the woman a decade ago and think what possible right would I have to her money, whilst still been able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning?
Some people still have morals, maybe?
Not sure how you can think it immoral... It's not like you're stealing anything.
But he's paying increased child support as a result, and offered a trust fund to the child. What right does the ex-wife have to any of it?
The fact that she left him a decade ago, but then came back only to take his money?
You don't find that immoral?
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Aug 2003
- Posts
- 3,001
Thank you 
Not sure how ten years of being apart doesnt class as a clean break, but classy woman trying to get £8m and being pictured with a bottle of champagne after leaving the hearing.
Also very clear it was all for herself since the childs father was clearly willing and ready to spend on his child, and even with having to pay his ex of ten years £2m he had to pay her £2,000 a month in child support up from £600
Also very clear it was all for herself since the childs father was clearly willing and ready to spend on his child, and even with having to pay his ex of ten years £2m he had to pay her £2,000 a month in child support up from £600
She's legally entitled to it, and it's only money, so I don't really see it as immoral, no.
Well, apparently she does have a right to it, or she wouldn't be able to make a claim for it.
Would there have been a way to word a "clean break" thing in such terms that he is required to support the common dependent - the child - but not the wife? Seems odd that you couldn't do that.
Just think you might have to give her half of your ten pound winnings.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 3,315
- Location
- Westergate
Surely the money should be put in trust for the child not fo an ex wife who left him a decade ago, total joke.
Ok, guess we're different then.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 16,024
- Location
- 9th Inner Circle
I aint saying she's a gold digga, but she ain't going with no broke <person>
The moral of this story is not "don't get married" but rather "male sure your divorce is watertight"
The moral of this story is not "don't get married" but rather "male sure your divorce is watertight"
It's OK, you can say ***** round here.
LordSploge said:
A better lesson would be "make your marriage work", but honestly, who has the time for that?
How is she entitled to something that is not hers, he received this money after ten years of their break up!...He was paying child allowance or whatever its called anyway, this money he has is not an income, it is a one off, so the allowance should not vary because of this.
It's pathetic, the system is bloody well flawed.
Its nonsensical logic in the land of the mad.
He didnt do the right kind of divorce. You have to specify, now, you want a legally binding clean break or else your still married, but then why go for the divorce in the first place.
He obviously didnt know he didnt have the right kind of divorce, otherwise he wouldnt be in this trouble in the first place so why wasnt he informed at the time?
This sort of thing nullifys the worth of anything, to do with the law. You have to specificy in the specificitys of specifications so specificically so that its worthless even trying. It seems theres no room for common sense or current interpretations.
He didnt do the right kind of divorce. You have to specify, now, you want a legally binding clean break or else your still married, but then why go for the divorce in the first place.
He obviously didnt know he didnt have the right kind of divorce, otherwise he wouldnt be in this trouble in the first place so why wasnt he informed at the time?
This sort of thing nullifys the worth of anything, to do with the law. You have to specificy in the specificitys of specifications so specificically so that its worthless even trying. It seems theres no room for common sense or current interpretations.