Divorce ruling - don't stop...

While it is obviously a gold-digger attempt, the guy did hide his wealth in the original ruling, so it's nothing but media blowing a story out of proportion. He did the wrong first.
 
FoxEye said:
The law in this country actively encourages women to marry for a nice divorce settlement.And discourages marriage at all for many.
Click to expand...

Sadly I think that is the direction we will be heading in at this rate

arknor said:
more about getting back at her ex husband and getting every penny she can do doubt.
Click to expand...

Indeed and I wonder how much of it will actually go to the children...

As a father myself, I would have zero hesitation in giving my kids my last penny, if I knew it was being spent on them, not clothes / jewellery / cars / holidays etc etc
 
The court ruling was to ensure that nether couple in a divorce hide their assets which needs to be distributed.

We have have no background on the the 2 women who brought the case to court other than one was married to a money launderer and the other got a lowly £10m in a divorce settlement. We are not told what they contributed to their marriages to be able to get their hands on the 'joint' wealths - it is fair to say if children are involved then more likely than not the mothers would be well compensated if they have been awarded the children.
 
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...

Time to pop over there and tell them divorce is all about being fair and not to be a money grabbing cow.
 
Quite a few people I know are hesitant to get married, especially when they own property and their girlfriend doesn't. One former colleague even rents his place out and shares a rented flat with his girlfriend since they've not been dating for very long.

Given the greater potential for divorce these days you really would have to be absolutely sure about someone before choosing to marry them.
 
Jim99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

But equally, the husband has been supporting the wife for those fifteen years. So if we're trying to roll the clock back fifteen years, then is he not due all that money back? He could have invested that money in something and been much wealthier now as a result.

Dividing the assets I'm okay with, because that is what marriage is about. You are becoming a single legal entity with full entitlement to one another's assets. But there is no way in hell either party should get a cut of the future income of the other person. Once the marriage is dissolved, all legal obligations should also be dissolved.
 
I still cant understand the reason for getting married in this country if you are not religious. If someone can convince me otherwise I'm open.

However after being in a good relationship for 8 (pretty much 9) years I have no urge whatsoever to get married, and really don't understand it. If you love someone why is that not enough. I can't see the need for a contact and all the ludicrous expense that seems to come with marriage.
 
might be crass to point out but the relationships with lower rates of divorce are where the husband is a few years older than the wife

you can see from the pictures that both women are a bit fat/obese whereas both husbands aren't so much - not that I'm blaming the wives for these divorces - I don't know the background but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if infidelity was a cause

40-something millionaire male is going to get attention from younger women, a 40-something female who has piled on the pounds is going to become less appealing.
I'm not trying to excuse the husbands if infidelity was the cause - being a cheating scumbag is still being a cheating scumbag even if you're a millionaire with more temptations/opportunities than most.

But it does seem to me that if you are in a successful career and you want a happy marriage, then aim to date women who are younger than you. Obviously you can't leave too much of an age gap else you then increase the chances of infidelity from the wife, there probably is an optimum age gap somewhere.
 
Cat_J said:
I still cant understand the reason for getting married in this country if you are not religious. If someone can convince me otherwise I'm open.

However after being in a good relationship for 8 (pretty much 9) years I have no urge whatsoever to get married, and really don't understand it. If you love someone why is that not enough. I can't see the need for a contact and all the ludicrous expense that seems to come with marriage.
Click to expand...

Same applies to me. I really don't get the marriage thing. I mean, I love a good party but the whole ceremony and being the centre of attention isn't for me (or my partner).

Are there any financial benefits if we are both equally career focussed?
 
StriderX said:
I don't understand why people don't just do prenups as standard...
Click to expand...

Don't think they're enforcable in the UK.

Doesn't cohabitation equate to the same rights as divorce these days after some time. So the ones not getting married but living with their partner could fall foul of the same issue.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
But equally, the husband has been supporting the wife for those fifteen years. So if we're trying to roll the clock back fifteen years, then is he not due all that money back? He could have invested that money in something and been much wealthier now as a result.

Dividing the assets I'm okay with, because that is what marriage is about. You are becoming a single legal entity with full entitlement to one another's assets. But there is no way in hell either party should get a cut of the future income of the other person. Once the marriage is dissolved, all legal obligations should also be dissolved.
Click to expand...

But your forgetting in this case the wife has also been supporting the husband – providing childcare that would otherwise be expensive (the value of a stay-at home mother has been calculated at about £60-70k per year per child). So you're looking at a scenario where the wife has given up a potentially lucrative career to provide free labour as a carer. By providing this support the wife has also potentially been responsible for the stable environment in which the husband has been able to propser financially, and is therefore somewhat responsible for that prosperity

I agree that sometimes the sums can be eye-watering, and it's especially ridiculous when someone claims £10m isn't enough to live on (I doubt I'll earn that in my entire working life). However when you try to conceal your full wealth to a divorce court (especially by orders of magnatude like this guy), you asking to be taken to the cleaners.
 
I don't really have any sympathy for people "taken to the cleaner's" following a divorce.

Everyone knows that in the UK the assets are shared regardless of who is better at earning money. If you don't agree to this, don't get married!!!!!

On the other hand though I do think that prenuptial agreements should be legal.
 
macmodder said:
By providing this support the wife has also potentially been responsible for the stable environment in which the husband has been able to propser financially, and is therefore somewhat responsible for that prosperity.
Click to expand...

I take it this is an argument for entitlement to future income?

What evidence could there be that the husband wouldn't have done so well without a wife and without kids? Perhaps he might have earned more, given that he'd have more time on his hands.

The idea that a man should be required to pay for his ex-wife to never have to work again is ludicrous. If she gets re-married, and has more kids, then the first husband effectively has to pay for not only her, but her new kids, her new husband... who can all afford to live without doing a single day's work. Obviously this only works in cases where the sums are large enough.

It does not strike me as a situation we want to encourage. Or a result that has anything to do with justice. Entitlement to future earnings is horrific.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom