Divorce ruling - don't stop...

Mr Badger

Mr Badger

Mr Badger

Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2009
Posts
11,208
...til you get enough.

Considering that the default level of casual misogyny on this forum I'm surprised there isn't already a thread* about today's little news gem:

Divorce ruling: Alison Sharland and Varsha Gohil win appeal

I can see there is a valid point regarding husbands not being honest in the original proceedings. However, I'm struggling to find sympathy for someone who considers that a £10m settlement (plus 30% of the proceeds of shares held by her software entrepreneur husband in his company) wouldn't be enough to live on. Anyone think that she could, maybe, get a job?

*waits for someone to posted link to the existing thread that I have somehow missed
 
The way I see it, whether it's a reasonable amount or not, the courts can and should come down hard on people who try to hide assets / otherwise mislead the court.

Also, whilst the first woman (IIRC) did get the £10m settlement you mentioned, the second got around £250k (again, IIRC). Very few people could live off that.
 
I do find the concept of divorce settlements odd to say the least, but then I wouldn't want a relationship where my partner was completely dependent on me for existence, nor would I want a partner that's happy with that.

Hiding assets is a separate issue though.

Jim99 said:
The way I see it, whether it's a reasonable amount or not, the courts can and should come down hard on people who try to hide assets / otherwise mislead the court.

Also, whilst the first woman (IIRC) did get the £10m settlement you mentioned, the second got around £250k (again, IIRC). Very few people could live off that.
Click to expand...

£250k would tide you over nicely till you got a job though? I don't see why you should be entitled to the same standard of living because you were married to a man or woman that could afford to facilitate it on your behalf?
 
Why the hell should they be able to live off a settlement? They could just work, you know, like the people that earned the money in the first place.

In cases like the £10million, unless there is evidence she has contributed to the wealth of their partnership (not in a business sense, just being together), surely it should just be average wage x length of time together assuming she didn't work so had no income for the period (provided she did work round the house etc).

Just disappoints me that people that don't actually do anything to get the money other than supposedly 'love' are entitled to so much, unless obviously there is more to the story.
 
Britain is now the best place to /in the world/ to get divorced, if you are a woman. "Divorce shopping" is now a thing.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/your-money/09iht-mdivorce.4538249.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Nowhere is this more true than in Britain, where the vow "for richer or for poorer" seems to apply more to divorce than to marriage. Nearly 10 months after the House of Lords ruled in two landmark divorce cases that spouses were entitled to a share of lifetime earnings and that a "legitimate expectation" of a wealthy lifestyle justified a high settlement, family law practitioners around the world are debating whether the balance has swung too far.

They are also wondering whether these rulings — which came just as the boom in London's financial services industry was putting multimillion- pound bonuses into the pockets of bankers and lawyers — are actually threatening the institution of marriage, or at least the concept of marriage as a partnership of equals.
Click to expand...

I think this will go some way to destroying marriage in future years.

Why should anyone be entitled to "lifetime earnings" of their partner? Will are talking earnings prior to the relationship, and earnings after the relationship.

If a man was to get married and divorced 3 times, the law in this country expects him to pay lifetime support to all three! It's crazy.

Also the House of Lords have enshrined in *law*, that a woman with an "expectation of living in wealth" now must be given the funds to enact that lifestyle.

Feminism, yo.
 
One More Solo said:
I do find the concept of divorce settlements odd to say the least, but then I wouldn't want a relationship where my partner was completely dependent on me for existence, nor would I want a partner that's happy with that.

Hiding assets is a separate issue though.



£250k would tide you over nicely till you got a job though? I don't see why you should be entitled to the same standard of living because you were married to a man or woman that could afford to facilitate it on your behalf?
Click to expand...

But thats the norm. Even low profile/normal cases have this issue.

I know a couple who got divorced a few years ago. She was just a stay at home mum with two kids. She expected the house and enough to live on each year so she still didn't have to work ever again. And she got it as well (well until the kids grow up anyway)

Why shouldnt there be hardships on both sides? You should not expect your circumstances to continuer exactly the same as before as always cheaper for two to live together than two separately.
 
Ms Sharland said "My legal battle has never been about the money, it has always been a matter of principle".

Yup, of course it is... I can hear the screams of joy from mumsnet from here...
 
One More Solo said:
£250k would tide you over nicely till you got a job though? I don't see why you should be entitled to the same standard of living because you were married to a man or woman that could afford to facilitate it on your behalf?
Click to expand...

The difficulty for me is this: suppose a couple both work hard, get well-paying jobs, then get married and have children.

At that point, let's say the wife (because more often than not it is), gives up work and earns nothing any more. Then, after 15 years, they get divorced.

Now, the bloke has 15 years more experience, and could be earning huge amounts. Meanwhile, the woman has not been in work for 15 years, and probably has no hope of getting the well-paying job she left 15 years previously. OK, she could get a job as a PA/delivering post/administrative etc, but it's going to be nowhere near what she would have done if she had never entered into the relationship. That decision to pack in work was done, most likely, on the assumption that the husband would continue to provide through work.

It's those situations where I see the point - though I accept that's not always the scenario that leads to divorce settlements.
 
if they had not deceived the court in the first place they wouldnt have needed to go back to court..only themselves to blame
 
I mujst admit though in the case in the link, settling for £10m which was meant to be half of what the company was worth when it turns out to be worth £600m probably warrants going after the rest of it.

On the other hand, the way it reads is that when its floated she will get £180m from that sale, so she won;t be too far off.
 
What if you get married as a pauper, work hard and get rich, wife contributes nothing to the hard work aspect of getting rich, does she still get the full payout even though she contributed nothing to the wealth, and also didn't technically marry into it?
 
Luggs said:
Ms Sharland said "My legal battle has never been about the money, it has always been a matter of principle".

Yup, of course it is... I can hear the screams of joy from mumsnet from here...
Click to expand...

I think it pretty much shows that if you're wealthy, you should only marry someone who is also independently wealthy.

The risk of being fleeced in a divorce is just too great.

Let's assume a business owner marries a girl who worked min wage jobs all her life. She becomes a stay at home wife. They don't even have kids.

Why is she then entitled to half his assets, and a share of his future income? They don't even have to be married for very long before she divorces him! Would she have earned anywhere near the millions she will receive in settlement?

It does not scream "justice" to me. We didn't coin the phrase "gold digger" for nothing. The law in this country actively encourages women to marry for a nice divorce settlement.

And discourages marriage at all for many.

Boycey0211 said:
What if you get married as a pauper, work hard and get rich, wife contributes nothing to the hard work aspect of getting rich, does she still get the full payout even though she contributed nothing to the wealth, and also didn't technically marry into it?
Click to expand...

Yes. The starting point for all settlements is 50/50. By law.
 
As a young person who hasn't ever really experienced sexism at school or more recently the workplace, the idea of (for example) a man putting in 90% of the family money at the start of marriage, doing 90% of the family's 'work', but splitting the family wealth 50/50 seems wrong, when woman appear equal to men in day to day life- I.e. just as capable of living comfortably.

If an equally poor man and woman got married, and the woman started a business and got rich without input from the mans , and then divorced for whatever reason, I would expect the woman to keep all of those earnings
 
Luggs said:
Ms Sharland said "My legal battle has never been about the money, it has always been a matter of principle".

Yup, of course it is... I can hear the screams of joy from mumsnet from here...
Click to expand...

more about getting back at her ex husband and getting every penny she can do doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom