Divorce Settlements

[holymonk]

Bitches all women are the same.

We should stone them all to death!

 

[kitkat9933]

Bitches all women are the same.

We should stone them all to death!

Yes

 

[LordSplodge]

No. People have said she was awarded too much, so aren't so bothered with him trying to avoid paying it.

what she really means is "i haven't worked a day in the last 18 years, why should i start now?"

28k/month is ridiculous

So raising children isn't work? Yes 27,000 / month is a lot of money but it isn't like this is Mr and Mrs Average here, is it?

He tried to get out of paying, and not very well by the looks of things, yet according to the male audience here she is at fault.

So "ridiculous" on his part for trying to deceive the court.

Women, always get what they want in the divorce. Mum took all my dads savings and the house he bought 10 years before he met her.

Citation required. Personal stories aren't fact.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Guy hides his money to avoid paying the required divorce settlement. Woman is at fault.

Misogyny runs rife on OCUK.

Well flip it around, that is what i always tell feminists. If the woman had all the money and the man had never worked, you don't think you would be defending the woman and the courts, for not allowing the free loader to take advantage of her wealth?

 

[Vita]

I'm sorry, and I'm talking from what I've seen. If they have kids, being a housewife is not an easy task.

£27.5k a week? That's just crazy though. Seems greedy, but each to their own I guess. Morally it's very wrong. Though moral doesn't exist anymore really.

 

[Freakbro]

So raising children isn't work? Yes 27,000 / month is a lot of money but it isn't like this is Mr and Mrs Average here, is it?

Exactly, what are talking about is a % of his income, just like everyone gets, it's only because he is so wealthy that % is so high. Everyone is saying she doesn't need that to live on, well then the same applies to him (and he will still have plenty left )

Old Berlusconi's ex just got awarded 100,000 Euro a day maintenance

Oh and to Groen, yes I do know of cases where there has been wealthy woman poor man and she has had to pay over. It's not the norm no, because social trends have always been the man is the bread winner the woman the homemaker.

 

[~Dockie]

So raising children isn't work? Yes 27,000 / month is a lot of money but it isn't like this is Mr and Mrs Average here, is it?

He tried to get out of paying, and not very well by the looks of things, yet according to the male audience here she is at fault.

So "ridiculous" on his part for trying to deceive the court.

1. You know what i mean't.
2. That money is for maintenance of the kids. She could raise 2 kids on 5k/m. I bet she doesn't give the other 22k back to him.

 

[Stretch]

Which backs up his statement which said people can have prenuptial agreements in the UK.

He's not wrong, you just can't have ridiculously unfair prenuptial agreements, if you want them to stand up. In the similar way to how you can have a contract, but in certain circumstances it could be so unfair as to be invalid.

You can have a verbal agreement too. It's not a prenump because It's not a legally binding contract. Your marriage certificat is what's binding.

 

[Stretch]

You can have a prenuptial agreement in the UK. I don't see why you're obsessed with denying that.

You can have one, just don't expect it to be worth the paper it's written on. It's not legal binding and it's unlikely to considered at all. It's not like contract law where you can argue they're grossly unfair. It's not a contract. At most it's an expression of wishes.

Solicitors (and online prenump services) will try their hardest to say otherwise because that's how they make their money.

 

[Stretch]

No, you can expect them to be followed if you make them fair. It's pretty simple. There's no need to have a big shock when the divorce comes. The fact is they exist... something you oddly deny :\.

People's view of what's fair is often very diffrent when you get married than when you get divorced. Divorce is rarely not a shock.

If everyone agrees on the divorce settlemt it's not a problem. If you can't agree you'll go through normal divorce precedings to decide what's "fair". It's pretty simple. Either way what you signed makes little difference because it's not legally binding. Something you oddly deny :\

 

[RDM]

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?

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

 

[anything I don't mind]

If they are that rich then she probably was not your typical house wife. She probably paid someone to raise the children. The argument that being a house wife is like a job so therefore she is entitled to half of all his wealth is pathetic. The only reason why these divorce settlements are like they are is because lawyers make money from them. What annoys me is not that they take half the money, the man are too blame for getting married in the first place. What annoys me is that people think they deserve half the money, the children and his soul. Some woman i have heard go realy realy evil when they get divorced, they literally want to take the husband for everything he has and the legal system supports this behaviour. They then go on to pretend to have the moral high ground in the case and that they are due half the money because they had children with him. They even go as far as turning it in to a situation where they say the man does not want to support his children because he doesn't want to hand over half his wealth his house etc. This is despicable. Sure there are cases where men simply abandon their children, but the majority of the cases that is not the case.

 

[RDM]

If they are that rich then she probably was not your typical house wife. She probably paid someone to raise the children. The argument that being a house wife is like a job so therefore she is entitled to half of all his wealth is pathetic.

Except this isn't the reason. When you marry then it stops being his wealth and becomes their wealth. That is what marriage means.

 

[aln]

I am still waiting for the story of young man who married a successful woman, only to have a divorce, take the children and demand a monthly salary and the house that she paid for.

I'm waiting for the man to counter sue asking for monthly access to the womans body and badly cooked meals a couple of times a week, just like when they were married.

Either way marriage and kids are an excessively one sided arrangement with a high success of failure. You should know what you're comitting to when you do it.

 

[anything I don't mind]

Except this isn't the reason. When you marry then it stops being his wealth and becomes their wealth. That is what marriage means.

I think you are right. I think you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I have a problem with. I am not against the idea of marriage in that living and sharing your life with someone else. But the legal contract side of marriage and the traditions. It is one thing to have a shared bank account or buy a house together legally, it is another to sign a legally binding contract that will lead to losing half your wealth and potentially worse. I think it is a shame that marriage has to include that contract for it to accepted as marriage.

 

[dannyjo22]

Just makes me think of that greedy bitch Heather Mills and her £24.3million divorce settlement.

She had to sleep with the frog song chump. She got half of what see deserves for that reason alone. He got money riding off the talent off others, no reason she shouldn't be able to do the same

 

[RDM]

I think you are right. I think you hit the nail on the head. This is exactly what I have a problem with. I am not against the idea of marriage in that living and sharing your life with someone else. But the legal contract side of marriage and the traditions. It is one thing to have a shared bank account or buy a house together legally, it is another to sign a legally binding contract that will lead to losing half your wealth and potentially worse. I think it is a shame that marriage has to include that contract for it to accepted as marriage.

So you don't actually want to share your life with someone, you want to share some of your time with them yet keep your life seperate?

 

[anything I don't mind]

No I want to do everything that is included in a marriage except the part where you get a marriage certificate.

 

[RDM]

No I want to do everything that is included in a marriage except the part where you get a marriage certificate.

But you don't, because you don't want to fully commit to being a couple. You don't want the "For richer, for poorer". You want "mine and yours" rather than "ours".

 

[anything I don't mind]

I want "ours" until trouble starts occurring then i want to be free to take what i have earned and leave. But that sentence was created way before modern legal settlements, do you think they had that in mind when they were making those vows up. You don't think it is in bad taste for a woman to get half of a man's wealth only because he married her?