Divorce ruling - don't stop...

[NickK]

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.

Nope I agree - at the point of divorce all assets should be split and final.

This is akin to:

A & B get 50% each. A gets 50% of B's future income based on B's 50% going forward until B dies.

Actually I can see this becoming a serious legal issue.

Just because one plaintiff decides they're going to hide their money... it then becomes law for everyone else? Something fishy going on.

I think that the legal system (regulatory) need to step in because this could end up being a vote winner..

 

[Werewolf]

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.

Pretty much it.

If you lie to the court and hide your assets don't be surprised if the court decides to look at your situation again and consider changing it's mind about what you should pay.

I'm surprised it isn't fraud or perjury as they have lied in a court room for financial gain.

 

[Mr Badger]

The answer is to stage a tragically fatal accident for the soon to be ex.

Sounds simple and effective. Are there any lawyers browsing this thread that can advise whether there could there be any legal issues with this course of action?

 

[[TW]Fox]

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?

Except she didn't contribute 'nothing' did she. There are many cases where the woman helps to provide the environment that the man was able to flourish from. Marriage is a partnership, after all, and when it goes well the whole is greater than the sum of both parts.

These 'do nothing' women actually provide and run a stable home environment allowing the man to focus far more than he may otherwise have been able to on the generation of wealth. To dismiss 'stay at home mums' as contributing nothing to the wealth of the hard working husband just isn't fair, IMHO.

Now this doesn't justify some of the ridiculous settlement awards but it does go a way towards explaining why there is an entitlement under law to some of the things that at first glance see unreasonable. Why should the man alone continue to benefit from the circumstances that BOTH partners built together? She shouldn't get half, of course, as it's nonsense to suggest the non working partner provides 50% of the effort required to 'get rich', but it's also nonsense to ignore the contribution she has made to the generation of that empire.

This is ESPECIALLY true where children are involved. I doubt Mr Self Made Millionare would have done quite as well on his business efforts if he was a struggling single dad..

 

[koolpc]

Except she didn't contribute 'nothing' did she. There are many cases where the woman helps to provide the environment that the man was able to flourish from. Marriage is a partnership, after all, and when it goes well the whole is greater than the sum of both parts.

These 'do nothing' women actually provide and run a stable home environment allowing the man to focus far more than he may otherwise have been able to on the generation of wealth. To dismiss 'stay at home mums' as contributing nothing to the wealth of the hard working husband just isn't fair, IMHO.

Now this doesn't justify some of the ridiculous settlement awards but it does go a way towards explaining why there is an entitlement under law to some of the things that at first glance see unreasonable. Why should the man alone continue to benefit from the circumstances that BOTH partners built together? She shouldn't get half, of course, as it's nonsense to suggest the non working partner provides 50% of the effort required to 'get rich', but it's also nonsense to ignore the contribution she has made to the generation of that empire.

This is ESPECIALLY true where children are involved. I doubt Mr Self Made Millionare would have done quite as well on his business efforts if he was a struggling single dad..

Well said sir

 

[Jim99]

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 don't think it's about rolling the clock back, it's about allowing for the future. The woman in this example would have a perfectly good future if she's as employable as she would have been with 15 years' work under her belt, but fact is that's not true.

Admittedly this is taking it to extremes, but lets imagine for a second that a couple get married at 30, the husband agrees that his wife should quit her job and act as a stay-at-home housewife/parent/socialite. Now, 35 years down the line, he decides that he wants a divorce.

The woman, then, is left with no pension, presumably 50% of assets (which may be a 200k share of a house), and no income. Not to mention she's 65.

Now, under your argument, that's fair enough. He can keep his pension, and sail off into the sunset. Meanwhile, she needs to move into council accommodation and live off of goodness knows what income. It's not exactly reasonable.

That to me is the point - it's not about rolling things back, it's about accounting for the fact that people make very serious life choices when they marry, and just erasing them several (or 35) years down the line doesn't work.

Fox also makes some good points, though I feel that ascribing value to the non-working partner is a tangent in terms of your argument.

 

[anything I don't mind]

There is no misogyny on this forum. I would know if I saw it.

 

[NickK]

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.

The point is you divorce because your unhappy. If she becomes a couch potato, gives up on doing anything constructive and no longer aligns with who you really sparked with?

Often people will just carry on, then one day they bump into someone that makes them look at what their life has become in a new light. It happens.

And if you feel you can do better? What then?

My point here is that everyone is victim. Or to reframe that - there are no victims. If she got married - then she knew what she was getting into. If he got married the same. If she decided to give up working, what did the man get out of it? If she gave up work because she wanted to and the man had no choice to continue working but disagreed?

What if the situation is that the woman cannot have children but the man does with the wife he selected? Crappy for everyone and nobody is at fault.. what happens then? Does she wander off with 50% and 50% of future earnings? It can only drive up the suicide/murder rate as people will take drastic action to just be happy and not be hung to dry each day?

No victims. Only idiots.

In the end the law makers are attempting to protect:
* kids - both parents are equally liable for the costs (regardless of the ability to pay).
* idealogical concept that a woman has to take time off to bring up kids. Either she does and she then owes the man (being an equal liability) or she does not and continues to pay her own liability.

I think given the state of play marriage will will no longer exist shortly.. and then when the legal system rules the man is wholey responsible for the financial liability of any sired children .. something will have to change.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

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'm not forgetting it, I am pointing out that the wife's labour is offset by her sharing in the husbands income. All the wife is losing is 'potential earnings' which is the same potential the husband loses by having his money tied up by supporting his wife.

Also, the husband cannot force his wife to give up work. She chose to give up her career in full knowledge of prevailing divorce rates. She should not expect to get a slice of the husbands future earnings because of that decision.

Plus, £60-70k for child care? Child carers get paid chump change.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I'm not forgetting it, I am pointing out that the wife's labour is offset by her sharing in the husbands income. All the wife is losing is 'potential earnings' which is the same potential the husband loses by having his money tied up by supporting his wife.

How does the wife get a job after 20 years of not working? Husband is fine, he has all that work experience he's been able to dedicate his life to building up whilst the wife sorted the home and kids out, but what happens to the wife now she has to go it alone?

 

[Richeh]

Pretty sure Child Maintenance will be on top of the settlements as well as that isn't handled by the courts any more.

 

[wnb]

This is why I insisted on finding a wife who was financially independant Too many women looking for a gravy train and an easy life.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

How does the wife get a job after 20 years of not working? Husband is fine, he has all that work experience he's been able to dedicate his life to building up whilst the wife sorted the home and kids out, but what happens to the wife now she has to go it alone?

Why is that the husband's problem? He didn't make her give up her career and sh could have gone back to work.

Invariably the hudband in this sort of relationship works lomg hours to bring home the bacon. How is the husband compensated for that? He's ready giving up half his assets that he's paid for.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Why is that the husband's problem?

It's circumstances that have arisen as a result of joint decisions made during the partnership - decisions that likely created a favourable environment for both.

He didn't make her give up her career and sh could have gone back to work.

You are totally missing the point. It is often a choice made TOGETHER for the benefit of BOTH. Two people commit to each other for supposedly life and both parties make choices and decisions based on that - freed from the need to provide for herself financially and think about her financial security many women can and do focus on other family needs that are equally as important, benefit the family hugely, provide the environment needed for the husband to thrive yet leave them totally screwed if it breaks down 30 years later.

Which is why the law protects such women (or men!).

 

[helpimcrap]

So the liars got caught out?

Good on 'em. Marriage is a partnership.

 

[FoxEye]

How does the wife get a job after 20 years of not working? Husband is fine, he has all that work experience he's been able to dedicate his life to building up whilst the wife sorted the home and kids out, but what happens to the wife now she has to go it alone?

So in your mind, in the 20 years the bloke has been slogging his guts off at work, while the wife was off shopping with her mum or watching daytime TV, the bloke has had the better deal

And yes, I know it's not exactly like that, but you see the point. When the kids are at school, these stay at home mums basically have a lot of leisure time.

This is basically the ruling of the courts, btw. That wives may have "become accustomed" to not having to work, therefore legally the bloke must continue to finance that lifestyle, so they can continue to not work, and be financially able to continue living the lifestyle they "expect".

That's what the linked article makes very clear. And the situation is unique in this country. If it was as clear and correct as you are pretending, don't you think other countries would have a similar outlook? But they don't. Get divorced in France, for example, and you won't get anywhere near the same sweet deal.

So the liars got caught out?

Good on 'em. Marriage is a partnership.

You'd have to be incredibly naive to think all marriages are partnerships.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So in your mind, in the 20 years the bloke has been slogging his guts off at work, while the wife was off shopping with her mum or watching daytime TV, the bloke has had the better deal

Yes, I forgot - every marriage with a successful male in it contains a lazy daytime TV watching gold digger and a hard working honest man who'd have been even more successful had he never started a family with his awful, scheming wife.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

And yes, I know it's not exactly like that

Do you? Because all you've got to dispute my point is extreme situations.

That's what the linked article makes very clear. And the situation is unique in this country. If it was as clear and correct as you are pretending, don't you think other countries would have a similar outlook? But they don't. Get divorced in France, for example, and you won't get anywhere near the same sweet deal.

Yea, the life you knew in tatters. Facing an uncertain future with no means of providing for yourself. What a sweet deal divorce after a long period of time must be.

A court of law will look at the circumstances. You are not guaranteed a 'sweet deal' by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure the courts make the odd mistake - I'm sure you've got a Daily Mail Link to hand showing a destitute entrepreneur and his lazy wife who now owns a business jet - but on the whole the system is about the most equitable solution for a difficult situation.

 

[helpimcrap]

You'd have to be incredibly naive to think all marriages are partnerships.

My marriage certainly wouldn't be an ownership. I detest the idea of treating a partner with such disregard. Some people like it I guess - it's the older generation but they are also responsible for the chav culture that is rotting the UK.

Respect is given until it is burned. Then it is very hard to get back.

 

[FoxEye]

Yes, I forgot - every marriage with a successful male in it contains a lazy daytime TV watching gold digger and a hard working honest man who'd have been even more successful had he never started a family with his awful, scheming wife.

Meanwhile, in the real world...

White knighting of the highest order, well done.

But in the "real world" I've seen plenty of relationships like this. True, most of them haven't tied the knot. Most of them live together for a few years, have a kid or two, then separate.

Perhaps you only know people with functional and equal marriages, but in the real world those aren't the only kind.

 

[anything I don't mind]

If they are that rich, the mother probably had hired help anyway. House work and nanny responsibility was probably out sourced. Its possible that she was more involved as a mother and with house work than a lot of rich people. That shouldn't qualify her for more than she is has financially contributed. I also think from the man's sides that a reasonable settlement in these sorts of matters would be less than half. Especially in instances where the marriage is short and the women did not stop her career to have children. In more smaller cases where both parties have worked and one has stopped for the children. Then splitting the assets (usually one house) half way is reasonable. When it comes to a man who has millions in stocks and other assets outside of his relationship, i can't see how it could be reasonable for the partner to get any of that. End of day at this point if someone who has any assets is stupid enough to get married then they deserve losing half of everything, this goes for well off people. Your average person with one house the bigger risk is losing contact with their children.