1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

£250,000 a year for life!

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by HEADRAT, May 24, 2006.

  1. anarchist

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Dec 2, 2004

    Posts: 9,702

    Location: Midlands

    I suspect you wouldn't get married if you thought that though would you? I doubt any husband realises that his wife is a money grabber before he marries her, and a pre-nup is basically like accusing your wife of marrying you for money isn't it - so I can see why they don't happen very often.
     
  2. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    :D Indeed. Over here, Anna Nicole Smith has got our Supreme Court to, essentially, legitimate gold digging ... sort of ... of course not by divorce but the thought that her marriage was purely a matter of mutual love defies the verities of life.

    In defense of Ms. Smith, I have to say that her former husband's son isn't exactly the most lovable of characters anyway.
     
  3. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jun 22, 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    Does anyone know if either of these two women get to keep their money if they get married again or enter into a long term relationship - particularly the one who get £250k for life. Seems to me that they should become someone else's problem should that occur.
     
  4. HEADRAT

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,014

    Location: Cambridge, UK

    Melissa Miller was married for less than three years when the couple split up, this is a joke, £5 million for three years!

    Her expectation was that she would have a wealthy lifesytle, surely if you leave the person with all the money that expectation should be reset!

    She didn't help him earn the money, she just came in, decided she didn't like it and left with £5 million!

    Not bad work if you can get it, honestly I bewildered by this decision.

    HEADRAT
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2006
  5. rabanthor

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 19, 2002

    Posts: 298

    mrs miller whose husband was adulterous? serves him right.
     
  6. HEADRAT

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,014

    Location: Cambridge, UK

    What £5 million for adultery, come of it (probably what Mrs Miller said) ;)

    There is no way on gods green earth she should walk away with £5 million, remmeber this case is going to be used as a precident for other cases.

    HEADRAT
     
  7. rabanthor

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 19, 2002

    Posts: 298

    yes, 5 million for adultery. you get married, equal partnership etc, he messes around, she gets the money. fair enough.
     
  8. HEADRAT

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,014

    Location: Cambridge, UK

    How is it an equal partnership when he's the one with all the money!

    HEADRAT
     
  9. rabanthor

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 19, 2002

    Posts: 298

    seems that might be what he thought too. he's learned the hard way. I have zero sympathy for him.
     
  10. HEADRAT

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,014

    Location: Cambridge, UK

    But you said it is an "equal partneship", how can it be considered an equal partnership if one person has all the money!

    Granted if you are foolish enough to get married you have to think its going to be 50/50 but I don't really see this as a "fair" decision.

    HEADRAT
     
  11. Beansprout

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Jan 31, 2004

    Posts: 16,276

    Location: Plymouth

    £250k/year...should pay the lawyer off in 5 years or so then :D

    If the man messes around then he deserves to be 'hurt' back - hell hath no wrath like a woman scorned - and taking a chunk of a businessman's money sure is a way to hurt him :)
     
  12. rabanthor

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 19, 2002

    Posts: 298

    are you married, headrat? I'd say most married couples would say their relationship is one of equals in all respects.

    edit... hehe guess not looking at your last post again...
     
  13. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Jan 13, 2005

    Posts: 10,708


    A good point was made on the news earlier - she's apparently a high flying city lawyer, and the years that she took off to have a family have meant that her earnings are considerably lower than they might have been otherwise. Its this difference, compounded over the rest of her career, that has led to the sums awarded. SOUnds reasonable to me.
     
  14. rabanthor

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 19, 2002

    Posts: 298

    I think we are getting the details of both womens payouts a bit mixed up.

    Melissa Miller can keep the £5m she was awarded out of her ex-husband Alan's £17.5m fortune, said the lords.

    Julia McFarlane is entitled to £250,000 a year from her ex-husband Kenneth for life - not just the five years decided by the Court of Appeal.
     
  15. elroberto

    Mobster

    Joined: Apr 21, 2004

    Posts: 2,945

    Location: Sunny Wales

    *deleted*
     
  16. spoon_a_rama

    Associate

    Joined: May 23, 2006

    Posts: 5

    I think that both cases are completely justified. In Ms. McFarlane's case, she gave up her job and thus became dependant on her husbands earnings. Now that she is no longer married to him its not like she can just walk back into her old job, she would have to start from scratch. If she has large financial commitments like finance on a nice car, how do you expect her to pay this off, when she would probably end up on a fairly low income.

    As for Ms. Miller yes she may have only been married to him for a couple of years but at the end of the day he cheated on her. I don't think its fair to say she is the one breaking her wedding vows by expecting a high standard of living. Surely he broke the vows first by commiting adultery??? You say she held out on him? So what if she did there is never an excuse for cheating on someone so he deserves to pay up!

    But I do agree there may be a lot more to these cases that we don't know about! I think you boys are just sore ;)
     
  17. pyro

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 23, 2002

    Posts: 16,167

    If two people, who are married, start up a business, then divorce, I think it would be fair that the business is either going public and the ownership is split to two, either it's liquified and they both get the same share.

    If on the other hand a woman marries a wealthy man, does nothing to add to the wealth, divorce, and then expects money.... :confused:

    Seriously, how does that work? I am getting fed up listening to dykes shouting women's rights when I see stuff like that :p
     
  18. HEADRAT

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,014

    Location: Cambridge, UK

    So basically if you are a rich man you should never get married as the women could make your life a living hell and you should be prepared to lose ££££ if you get divorced. Even if he didn't cheat and just wanted a divorce because they couldn't stand the sight of eachother she should walk away with £5 million :confused:

    If there were children in the equation then I would agree but she spend 2 years 9 months with they guy, there is no way she should be entitled to £5 million. Now I'm not saying she should leave with nothing but leaving with that amount of money after such a short amount of time is perverse, why exactly is she entitled to that money?

    In this case I agree, they had been married for years and had three children, this is completely different to the other case IMHO.

    HEADRAT
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2006
  19. Mr Joshua

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 3,944

    I heard on 5 Live that £15m was made during their marriage, 1/3 of that going to the wife due to his unfaithfulness seems fair enough to me.
     
  20. HEADRAT

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 18,014

    Location: Cambridge, UK

    So if she'd been unfaitful and they'd got divorced how much would he have got?

    HEADRAT