Proposed new anti gold-digger law

Sounds a bit of a ropey one to me.

Consider a wealthy person who has money but isn't actively pursuing more money, marries someone at the start of their career in international banking. The wealthy person encourages the person to abandon their career in favour of spending time together. They are together 20 years, raise 4 children and then divorce. The person cannot go back to international banking as the industry has moved on significantly and they physically aren't able to cope.

What is that person entitled to as part of the separation? I get the feeling this law could be used to argue 'very little indeed'.
 
Sounds like a great law to me, exactly as it always should have been.

PMKeates said:
Sounds a bit of a ropey one to me.

Consider a wealthy person who has money but isn't actively pursuing more money, marries someone at the start of their career in international banking. The wealthy person encourages the person to abandon their career in favour of spending time together. They are together 20 years, raise 4 children and then divorce. The person cannot go back to international banking as the industry has moved on significantly and they physically aren't able to cope.

What is that person entitled to as part of the separation? I get the feeling this law could be used to argue 'very little indeed'.
Click to expand...

Get a job?
 
Castiel said:
I think all such decisions should be made on a case by case basis and not having a blanket law which doesn't consider individual circumstances, like children and joint investments in property etc.
Click to expand...

Bit of both tbh... the proposed new law seems to be OK as a general principle but perhaps they need to consider other factors such as how long the couple were living together as a married couple before getting married - if it were the case that say one spouse had given up work or something in order to look after kids and they'd only got married later then it would make sense to count assets acquired from as far back as when they started cohabiting and account for the loss of the career.

Though IMO if someone owns a million pound house before they even meet their current spouse then their spouse shouldn't really have any claim on it in the event of a divorce.
 
Sell and split the money or offer to pay out half of the items cost if you want to keep it. People really shouldnt buy things together due to this very situation it brings up.
 
Ksanti said:
But after the work, debt and time put into university, becoming an investment banker etc., they would now be earning significantly less than they would had they kept working throughout those years.
Click to expand...

Sometimes you have to choose between a family and a big career, their choice.

Besides, the aforementioned situation would never happen anyway because if you are that wealthy you have savings earning lots of interest and investments.
 
Moses said:
If she's just paying towards the day-to-day running of the house, what's wrong with that? She's effectively just living there, paying towards living costs... like renting, almost. If she'd paid towards the mortgage then it'd obviously be unfair for her to get nothing... but if she's just chipping in for council tax/water/electric/gas/etc, that's cool.
Click to expand...

What about when its a joint account and there is no distinction between who is paying what?
 
Women have it far too easy. They have all the rights while us men have to bear the financial brunt. About time some things were done to redress the balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom