Divorce Settlements

[No1newts]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3659106.ece

You need to be subscribed to read the full article but essentially he has been jailed for refusing to pay a divorce package of £27.5k p/w. he has hidden his assets (he denies this) to avoid paying.

Personally I say fair play to him! What is the justification for someone "needing" 27.5k p/w to live off. It's greed on her behalf just wanting money so she doesn't have to work again.

I'm all for a fair divorce settlement which means the divorcee and child can live comfortably, even well, but no way they need that much. It's in no way justifiable.

Thoughts?

 

[No1newts]

I dont know the full details but if she has been married a while and has kids then she will be entiled up to 50%. He is saying that he has lost it all in some sort of Russian deal and can not afford to pay the 30k a week.

That smells of bull, I reckon he's hidden offshore and just refusing to pay, which in the case I would say fair play. But he could have lost it.

 

[No1newts]

As part of the cash he owes is for School fees for his 2 daughters I'd say he's out of order. If he paid for his daughters & denied his X untold cash then it would be different.

I agree completely but as he clearly fiddling he would probably struggle to free up assets for and not the other without opening himself to having the lot taken.

The kids should be looked after, the wife should be supported but not given a free ticket on the gravy train fir life merely for being his wife. If she's that desperate for the life stay with him (if possible)

I just don't understand how being married to someone basically entitled you to stupid money for life. (if they are rich) If he is actually hiding the money and is willing to go to jail over his principles respect to him, I think I would though I'll doubt I'll ever be rich enough to test the theory

 

[No1newts]

Why is she greedy for wanting the court agreed settlement whilst he isn't greedy for wanting to keep all the money?

Think my OP (that you quoted) pretty adequately set out my view. Take longer to read and digest if need be if it was really so complicated then there's no need for such dumb replies

 

[No1newts]

Its a fair point groen makes though. Marriage states that you support eachother for better or worse not for D amount of years post marriage because you couldn't get on.

I agree wholeheartedly that children should be looked after and given the best possible standard of life but I fail to understand why someone should be supported for free for the rest of their life merely for having married the right person. If you separate you should start looking after yourself as you are no longer together.

 

[No1newts]

I disagree, his PoV seems to be predicated on the fact that it is always a wealthy male and gold digging female.

I wasn't so much agreeing with his wording but the general point, applied to either gender.

Marriage is about best intentions; vows are unlikely to acknowledge the likelihood of matrimonial failure. It also says for richer and poorer, and statements like these can be contorted into any which fashion.

Then perhaps there is an argument that marriage vows should be updated because it is a sad fact that a lot of marriages do fail.

Regarding your complaint on supported living standards, it does depend on the case and circumstances. Where children are involved it is invariably more complicated, as children with subsidence cannot provide for them self a lifestyle they may be entitled to without the custodian parent having to at least facilitate it especially with regards to housing and education.

Again I agree and I think this is something that needs to reflected in legal terms, some system set up to provide suitable care for children and differentiating that from general severance.

I think looking at this solely I cannot accept the amount is what is needed to support children and her, it's a reflection on the current divorce situation which grants excessive amounts of money for simply being married in the first place.


For the record I am married with children and if, god forbid, we ever separated I would not hesitate or begrudge supporting my children, I would go above and beyond what is expected. However, I would begrudge supporting my (then) ex so she could live an easier life whilst my own lifestyle and ability to move on was hindered by someone who had agreed to seperate.