Divorce ruling - don't stop...

[fendi]

Aren't most of the people missing the point here: that this specific case is about people lying in family court about the extent of their assets?

exactly, he committed fraud and should be sent to prison.

if he was honest about his assets (£600 million), she would have received at least 10x what she did get initially and this case would be closed.

he tried to pull a fast one and it has back fired. lying in court, he should be made an example of. scumbag.

he should be punished for lying about what he was hiding.

 

[Tunney]

Tunney will be along shortly to defend this claiming the man must support his wife, she was there by his side when he made all those mills. And when she leaves she must be handed them on a plate too.

I don't think I've even given my views on how assets should be split in divorce cases in this thread. For the record, I believe that the settlement should depend on how long the marriage has lasted and who is the primary care giver to any children. At most, the person who has given up their career to support their partner should get 50% of the total assets.

It sounds like the lottery winner should have splashed out on a better lawyer!

 

[George Hincapie]

I don't think I've even given my views on how assets should be split in divorce cases in this thread. For the record, I believe that the settlement should depend on how long the marriage has lasted and who is the primary care giver to any children. At most, the person who has given up their career to support their partner should get 50% of the total assets.

It sounds like the lottery winner should have splashed out on a better lawyer!

Thank goodness you don't create the law then.

Any payment should be restricted to half of what the women would have earned, not half of what the husband did earn.

 

[Tunney]

Any payment should be restricted to half of what the women would have earned, not half of what the husband did earn.

Have you ever heard the average wedding vows? Marriage is a partnership. You work together even when only one person in the relationship has a salaried job.

If two people owned a company equally, each would get 50% of the money when the business was sold - even if only one made the business a success.

 

[FoxEye]

Have you ever heard the average wedding vows? Marriage is a partnership. You work together even when only one person in the relationship has a salaried job.

If two people owned a company equally, each would get 50% of the money when the business was sold - even if only one made the business a success.

Yes because nobody has ever seen a one-sided relationship Not even just gold diggers, tbh. There are plenty of relationships where one person is a go-getter and the other isn't, regardless of gender. It's not always the woman that's a bum. But there are plenty of marriages where one person grafts and the other freeloads.

In before "those are extremely rare fringe cases".

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I don't think I've even given my views on how assets should be split in divorce cases in this thread. For the record, I believe that the settlement should depend on how long the marriage has lasted and who is the primary care giver to any children. At most, the person who has given up their career to support their partner should get 50% of the total assets.

It sounds like the lottery winner should have splashed out on a better lawyer!

 

[Tunney]

LOL. That's lucky, my wife wouldn't be happy if I was having sex with maidens all of the time.

Yes because nobody has ever seen a one-sided relationship Not even just gold diggers, tbh. There are plenty of relationships where one person is a go-getter and the other isn't, regardless of gender. It's not always the woman that's a bum. But there are plenty of marriages where one person grafts and the other freeloads.

Why would someone get into a relationship with a freeloader? No-one is putting a gun to their head and making them get married to someone like that.

 

[FoxEye]

Why would someone get into a relationship with a freeloader? No-one is putting a gun to their head and making them get married to someone like that.

Alright, freeloading might be a bad choice of words. But there are plenty of marriages between high-earners and low-earners.

And it can not be assumed that the low-earner would have had an amazing career, equal to the high-earner, before they stopped working completely to look after the kids.

After all, if a CEO marries a cleaner (hey, takes all sorts), it's hardly likely that the cleaner would have gone on to make a 6 figure salary.

But this is where the law steps in, and like that NY Times article says, "If a party has come to expect a certain standard of life, due to living that life when married, and they have an expectation after being divorced of retaining such a lifestyle, then they have a right to enough money to carry on living that way."

I'm paraphrasing, the link is earlier in the thread. But that expectation seems to be a legal starting point when deciding settlements. So in the case of the CEO and the cleaner, not only has the cleaner lived well beyond their means during the marriage, but they have a *right* to have that kind of lifestyle provided after divorce.

If that isn't wrong I don't know what's right anymore.

 

[RDM]

The whole point of marriage is that it is a partnership. Everything goes from being "Yours" and "Mine" to "Ours". The relative wealth or earning potential doesn't really matter. The amount of support a partner supplies is literally immeasurable, it will vary so much between couples and be so difficult to quantify that it isn't even worth trying. Divorce should therefore be about a fair division of assets and ensuring children are provided for.

 

[FoxEye]

The whole point of marriage is that it is a partnership. Everything goes from being "Yours" and "Mine" to "Ours". The relative wealth or earning potential doesn't really matter. The amount of support a partner supplies is literally immeasurable, it will vary so much between couples and be so difficult to quantify that it isn't even worth trying. Divorce should therefore be about a fair division of assets and ensuring children are provided for.

OK, fair enough, and point taken. Marriage sounds like a terrible idea

I do think that the "share of future earnings" thing is still patently unfair tho.

 

[Tefal]

Far worse. It's a website for men who want to completely disengage with the other sex - socially, romantically and professionally.

gay sex site?

awesome, are they fiities though or basement dwellers? i tend to find the more technical the hook up system the fatter the guy. except for the odd bodybuidler cause they're all massive nerds just not all into tech.

 

[Drizmod]

Theres lots of people in here saying they have zero sympathy for him because he lied about how much money he has. Although what he did was wrong non the less its understandable why he would do that as he did not feel she deserved half of his 600 million or whatever it was.

Only when its the other way around and a woman has to pay half her billion or so pound fortune to an ex husband will we ever get serious calls for a reform to the laws.

 

[Destination]

Theres lots of people in here saying they have zero sympathy for him because he lied about how much money he has. Although what he did was wrong non the less its understandable why he would do that as he did not feel she deserved half of his 600 million or whatever it was.

Only when its the other way around and a woman has to pay half her billion or so pound fortune to an ex husband will we ever get serious calls for a reform to the laws.

I disagree, breaking the law and commiting fraud, just because HE felt she wasn't entitled to it isn't remotely understandable. It is illegal.
He could have decared all and made legal arguments to the effect you proposed. He was in an existing legally binding contract, if he didn fancy being in it anymore, he should have divorced and settled prior to making his money.

 

[Werewolf]

I disagree, breaking the law and commiting fraud, just because HE felt she wasn't entitled to it isn't remotely understandable. It is illegal.
He could have decared all and made legal arguments to the effect you proposed. He was in an existing legally binding contract, if he didn fancy being in it anymore, he should have divorced and settled prior to making his money.

This.

If he'd declared his assets honestly he could have made an arguement that the Judges probably would have listened to given the amounts involved, and awarded a lot less than has happened now.
As he lied to the court the Judge would probably take that into account, and may wonder if he still hasn't declared everything (also possibly making a bit of an example of him, to show that if you do lie to the court the court will split it 50/50 or whatever),

When you start from a position of lying to the court you can have zero complaints if the court finds out and then doesn't give your future arguments that much weight.

He's very lucky IMO he isn't seeing some form of criminal investigation or prosecution, as normally if you lie to the court about anything with deliberate intent to mislead the judges it's taken very very seriously (it's the reason you see someone going to jail for what would have originally been a £60 fine and points for a motoring offence).

 

[RDM]

OK, fair enough, and point taken. Marriage sounds like a terrible idea

I do think that the "share of future earnings" thing is still patently unfair tho.

If children are involved then a share of future earnings is probably appropriate. In reality the reason divorce force law looks unfair and always seems to impact the man is because society is unfair and more negatively impacts the woman in general.

My wife earns much more than me currently, but I have a larger share of the childcare, if we were to get divorced it would likely be that I came out of it in a "better" position just because of our current relative positions.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

because society is unfair and more negatively impacts the woman in general.

Did I walk into a feminist meeting or something?

 

[RDM]

Did I walk into a feminist meeting or something?

No, just a realist. For many reasons, only a few of which are biological, women will not typically do as well as men financially.

That isn't to say the way our society is set up doesn't also negatively impact men too, certain careers are almost no go areas or come with significant stigma attached, we are socially conditioned to repress our feelings leading to high instances of mental health and suicide.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

No, just a realist. For many reasons, only a few of which are biological, women will not typically do as well as men financially.

That isn't to say the way our society is set up doesn't also negatively impact men too, certain careers are almost no go areas or come with significant stigma attached, we are socially conditioned to repress our feelings leading to high instances of mental health and suicide.

I agree

Errbody be crazeh