News: Confusing Courts - Divorce

Narj

Narj

Narj

Soldato
Joined
19 Feb 2010
Posts
13,254
Location
London
I thought the courts had started to see a bit more sense lately given the woman that was told to get a job rather than being supported by her ex-husband indefinitely, then this little gem pops up:

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

A former New Age traveller whose ex-husband became a millionaire a decade after they separated has won a Supreme Court financial claim.
Click to expand...

No mention of kids so it'll be interesting to see the full story - it's staggering how greedy some people get after divorce though!
 
Note that his objection to the claim was on the basis that the claim was too late.

It wasn't because there was a question on whether it was due to her, other than the timing of her claim.
 
Narj said:
No mention of kids so it'll be interesting to see the full story - it's staggering how greedy some people get after divorce though!
Click to expand...

Looks like someone didn't read the article properly...

BBC News Site from your Linky said:
The pair had a son and lived a New Age traveller lifestyle before their eventual divorce.
Click to expand...

:p

Regardless sfaic if she didn't actually contribute anything to the business he set up before or after the divorce she has no right to the money the kid is entitled to some as maintainance but not her.
 
there must be more to this story than we are being told as, already pointed out, his only objection was the timing of the claim and not that it's incorrect.

i can only guess she helped fund his lifestyle with her benefits money while he was getting the knowledge to create the business he then made millions from. she perhaps also looked after the kid while he spent his time on the business.
 
Waiting for ex- millionaire husband, who gave a substantial sum to ex-wife, to take her to court decades later... To get some funds back, having become bankrupt.
 
Article is far too light on the details for anyone here to make a reasoned judgement. 5 judges ruled unanimously that it should stand. They will have reasons why and the article mentions nothing about them.

We are also light on the reasons for the divorce - it could be anything, perhaps one of them was rampantly shagging everything that moved, domestic abuse, or just "irreconcilable differences" - and even the date of divorce is missing.
 
Divorce was 1992 I think and they had been separated since the mid 80's. He started the company up in 1995 so that's about 7 years after they broke up...

Luckily the ruling today was just that it can actually be seen in court, with the judges also saying there is no way she is going to get millions, rather a much more "modest" sum, if any.
 
Narj said:
No mention of kids so it'll be interesting to see the full story - it's staggering how greedy some people get after divorce though!
Click to expand...

No mention of kids, did you not even read the article you posted? It clearly states they had a son called Dane.

:rolleyes:
 
anticonscience said:
No mention of kids, did you not even read the article you posted? It clearly states they had a son called Dane.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Did you not even read the thread you've been posting in? It clearly states the article was breaking news and had been receiving updates :rolleyes:

:D
Narj said:
They've been updating the article - it was breaking news when I posted :)
Click to expand...
 
Hold on a second. There are a few key points many of you are ignoring.

a) There is no mention of the settlement value, only that it will be 'considerably less' than the amount she is claiming
b) 'Lord Wilson said Ms Wyatt had raised her son through "sixteen years of real hardship".'

Without knowing the value of the settlement how can we possibly whinge about how awful and unfair it is?
 
A modest settlement of £50

To be honest if he pays her maintenance for the son for all those years then thats fair. She could have worked instead of living on benefits. If you don't work from laziness or the excuse of being a parent then any hardship you endure is of your own making and shouldn't factor into the decision.
 
she was on benefits at the time lol.
probably been on benefits her whole life....

Give money to the kid sure but the mother? just seems like a gold digger that found out an ex is worth something
 
fez said:
A modest settlement of £50

To be honest if he pays her maintenance for the son for all those years then thats fair. She could have worked instead of living on benefits. If you don't work from laziness or the excuse of being a parent then any hardship you endure is of your own making and shouldn't factor into the decision.
Click to expand...

If she receives a retrospective maintenance payment, then should her benefits also be retrospectively calculated, and any over payment be deducted from the settlement and instead paid back to the DWP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom