Caporegime
to summarise it briefly
"they werent technically fully divorced"
whichever divorce lawyer they use didnt tie up all the loose ends.
£56m lotto winner must pay the ex who dumped him ten years ago
- Thread starter G-MAN2004
- Start date
to summarise it briefly
"they werent technically fully divorced"
whichever divorce lawyer they use didnt tie up all the loose ends.
Caporegime
Man of Honour
Not really, it's the idea that they could have created a divorce agreement where neither party had any claim to any future earnings of the other. It is however complicated by the child in the situation.
I'm not sure that £56m (£54m if you've already paid the ex-wife) buys a more comfortable jail cell in the UK, you could try Indonesia or Bolivia though as I believe you can build your own cell there.
Be fair, if you'd just acquired £2m would you not want to celebrate?
Personally I might have been tempted to take the case to court to see precisely why an offer to set up a trust fund for the daughter and the increase in maintenance would have been insufficient but that would only be if I could guarantee that the child in this didn't suffer unduly. However if there was a risk of the child suffering then £2m out of £56m isn't really a sum I'm likely to notice so I'd pay it and consider it fair value.
Caporegime
Fair enough
This is why I hate weddings and divorces, everyone just wants a piece of everything, get rid of eachother and get on with things!
I still fail to see how this is allowed...Unless the divorce entitlment for the child allowance said "Any further significant increases in the ex-husbands bank account credit will go towards the new allowance" ...?
It baffles the mind
Caporegime
Soldato
Just got to hope that if she marries this new fella then he screws her out of half of it
Associate
+1 Unfortunatly though, she quite possibly wont, shes now a millionairre and as much as people may kick up a fuss there are equally as many shallow men around as are women. So she will just find someone as equally mean and nasty as she is.
Man of Honour
This actually doesn't surprise me.
My aunt was divorced from her ex-husband for 3 or 4 years with absolute when my Nan died leaving her with half of her inheritance. the other half went to my mum. He claim he has entitled to half of her half.. After an initial court hearing, the judge ordered all her inheritance was frozen until the dispute was concluded, it took 3 years and he got a fair % not half but a fair amount..
My aunt was divorced from her ex-husband for 3 or 4 years with absolute when my Nan died leaving her with half of her inheritance. the other half went to my mum. He claim he has entitled to half of her half.. After an initial court hearing, the judge ordered all her inheritance was frozen until the dispute was concluded, it took 3 years and he got a fair % not half but a fair amount..
Caporegime
I know you cant answer in specifics...but why?
because technically when you sign up to marriage, you agree to share everything you will EVER have with your wife
Whoever wrote their divorce papers, didnt write it so that this commitment was broken, as well as the actual legal status of being married as well
In essence.
Caporegime
But why is that not default? Whoever first designed divorce papers obviously knew this and is a complete tard
Divorce should be just that...Remove all legal tie-ins with said partner...if other things need to be added seperately, ie child allowance then that is done like that...seperately.
It really is not hard
You can't force the other person in your marriage to want it to work.
Marriages only work if both parties want them to. And marriages don't always fail because of some fault with either person... sometimes it's "grass is greener" thinking.
In other words he could have treated her like a princess for all we know, but if some other bloke caught her eye and she wanted to... ahem... diversify her portfolio, there isn't anything you can do to "make the marriage work" in that case.