Divorce Settlements

[Angilion]

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

It was given that meaning in the middle ages, when it fitted the very strong gendered roles and divorce was impossible anyway.

It was later modified so that the man's wealth becomes jointly owned but the woman keeps her wealth for herself alone (Married Women's Property Act, 1870 and 1882).

Contempory society is very different indeed in terms of gendered roles. Rules created for those times are not justified today, especially when they are implemented in a wholly sexist way. Divorce is not just possible but a right and it carries no stigma. Women are not heavily restricted in being able to earn a living for themselves, even if they're in a higher socioeconomic group(*). The circumstances are very different and the rules should reflect the circumstances.


* In the past, as a general rule, women in lower socioeconomic groups were little or no more restricted in earning a living than men at the same socioeconomic level, especially back in medieval times. Anything up to small business owning commoner level was relatively egalitarian unless guilds were involved.

 

[Biohazard]

Why are those the terms of marriage?

Because it's marriage? You could argue it should move with the time, which it should, but it's hard to envisage exactly what the point would be.

After two people have joined, why can't they separate as they were?

They can if they choose to, otherwise in some circumstances you find there is a right for half the estate.

I think certain things should obviously be taken into account, for example a woman giving up a career to be a housewife/mother to kids, etc... but it seems fairly ridiculous that someone can marry an extremely rich person, then walk away a couple of years later with more money than 99% of people can ever dream of having!

Which is the more modern reasoning behind it, but again this isn't exlusive to any gender.

It does seem on the face of it mildly unfair; but he agreed those terms.

Not a jot of sympathy.

If the union we have with Scotland ends, I guess you want a 50/50 split of national debt, yeah? ;p

If we get 50 of the assets. Go for it.

 

[Biohazard]

Aln.

Why would you want to get married but live as seperated in mentallity?

More often I find personally that there is cross over between his and her when it comes to income and expenditure, this black and white 'mine & yours' for the period of the relationship is just bizarre to me.

I own my house. My girlfriend moved in, we call it our home. She helps to decorate, furnishes it girly stuff, considers it her home. I know if I marry she will get her right to half of it should she wish, even though I bought it over a decade ago long before I met her and have maintined the mortgage myself. I let her contribute in other ways, but not for the bricks. If I were to marry her, I would be letting her have half of my equity that I took a risk on at 18. If I think that's fair or not is irrelevent to the fact that it is a probable outcome of a split.

You don't sleep walk into a situation like that without knowing the risks. The fact that my equity is tiny in comparison to his capital is irrelevent; principles are the same.

 

[Haggisman]

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.

I like this idea!

 

[Reemul]

But it was his wife and her family that gave her husband the money to set up and help run his business that made all this money. So without her he may have had nothing.

The fact is he left her, he hid all THEIR money not his and ****ed off. How would any of you feel if it was role reversed and happening to you, be fine would ya, say never mind ill finish bringing the kids up on benefits and with no money while m other half is living the hi life.

Yeah right, need to get some perspective here really.

 

[bazaarboy]

But it was his wife and her family that gave her husband the money to set up and help run his business that made all this money. So without her he may have had nothing.

The fact is he left her, he hid all THEIR money not his and ****ed off. How would any of you feel if it was role reversed and happening to you, be fine would ya, say never mind ill finish bringing the kids up on benefits and with no money while m other half is living the hi life.

Yeah right, need to get some perspective here really.

about time someone made a sensible post.
this guy has hidden nearly half a billion (do you think his tax return is sincere?), is disrespecting a court of law, left his wife and children and refuses to pay maintenance

but some posters here have a go a the wife...
nice

 

[aln]

Aln.

Why would you want to get married but live as seperated in mentallity?

I never said you would. If I myself every get married and divorced, it'll likely be a messy one. Thats our choice.

More often I find personally that there is cross over between his and her when it comes to income and expenditure, this black and white 'mine & yours' for the period of the relationship is just bizarre to me.

I own my house. My girlfriend moved in, we call it our home. She helps to decorate, furnishes it girly stuff, considers it her home. I know if I marry she will get her right to half of it should she wish, even though I bought it over a decade ago long before I met her and have maintined the mortgage myself. I let her contribute in other ways, but not for the bricks. If I were to marry her, I would be letting her have half of my equity that I took a risk on at 18. If I think that's fair or not is irrelevent to the fact that it is a probable outcome of a split.

Actually I'm pretty sure she won't. I checked into it because I also own my own house, though unlike you I'm still paying for it. Without a messy relationship, which most of them will be, she'll be entitled to what she paid for. Even with kids, although the lines will be quickly blurred, she won't neccesarily get any percentage of your home.

However, if she hads kids, whether or not it's still cosidered your home, it's likely she'd be allowed to live in it until your children fly the nest. Then again if she has kids, she'll be able to argue that her earnings are capped due to giving up work for kids, again making the whole ordeal more complicated.

Oh and it's likely this'll all be true regardless of your marriage status.

You don't sleep walk into a situation like that without knowing the risks. The fact that my equity is tiny in comparison to his capital is irrelevent; principles are the same.

Actually I think it's interesting that we've been taught that it's worse than it is. I'm fairly sure you get to keep your own stuff, it just becomes more and more difficult to define who fairly owns what when you've married.

Also I'm not saying you should live a seperate life, financially or otherwise. I certainly wouldn't. However, I don't believe in the argument that marriage is a financial union and I believe if people want to keep their finances seperate, it shouldn't stop them from getting married as a spiritual union.

 

[aln]

about time someone made a sensible post.
this guy has hidden nearly half a billion (do you think his tax return is sincere?), is disrespecting a court of law, left his wife and children and refuses to pay maintenance

but some posters here have a go a the wife...
nice

If thats true the guy should rot in a cell until he pays up.

 

[shoes]

well this is a thoroughly depressing thread

I think I have mentioned this before, but my other half is well into the marriage and kids idea, the whole thing terrifies me.

I'm prepared to grow old being lonely

 

[shoes]

about time someone made a sensible post.
this guy has hidden nearly half a billion (do you think his tax return is sincere?), is disrespecting a court of law, left his wife and children and refuses to pay maintenance

but some posters here have a go a the wife...
nice

50/50

I think people take umbridge at the proportion the wife is to be paid, not that she is being paid.

If he was paying maintenance which was appropriate to the child's development and growth then no one would have a problem with that. If she's going to live a life of luxury off the back of her failed marriage then that is a problem.

 

[bazaarboy]

50/50

I think people take umbridge at the proportion the wife is to be paid, not that she is being paid.

If he was paying maintenance which was appropriate to the child's development and growth then no one would have a problem with that. If she's going to live a life of luxury off the back of her failed marriage then that is a problem.

okay, but absolute figures are meaningless
divide all the figures by a thousand and you have someone who probably has 400,000 hidden somewhere, and refuses to give £27 per month to his ex & children
you can't expect the wife and children to survive on a "normal" income whilst the guy is loaded

 

[anything I don't mind]

I am ok with 50/50 if the input is 50/50 but that is rarely the case. It is the womans fault for relying on the marriage certificate and the corrupt legal system in order to get her "fair" share. If it was realy due to her then she would have put the measures in place that would have resulted in her getting her share. But we all know that she most likely did nothing but spend money and moan. While the men slaved a way and took risks and worked long hours, she was getting her hair done and buying clothes and paying someone to raise the kids. Now all of a sudden she deserves half the wealth that he has worked for. But that seems reasonable to you? It does to the corrupt legal system.

 

[RDM]

I am ok with 50/50 if the input is 50/50 but that is rarely the case. It is the womans fault for relying on the marriage certificate and the corrupt legal system in order to get her "fair" share. If it was realy due to her then she would have put the measures in place that would have resulted in her getting her share. But we all know that she most likely did nothing but spend money and moan. While the men slaved a way and took risks and worked long hours, she was getting her hair done and buying clothes and paying someone to raise the kids. Now all of a sudden she deserves half the wealth that he has worked for. But that seems reasonable to you? It does to the corrupt legal system.

You aren't in a relationship are you?

 

[estebanrey]

It's not only because he married her. It's because she's stayed had home, spitting out his kids, washing his cloths, cooking his tea, doing his shopping, helping make him successful.

I don't think you can draw a direct correlation between doing the housework and the salary of the breadwinner.

My mother for example did all the washing, cleaning, bringing up the kids in our household but that didn't result in my dad becoming a multimillionaire. Are you saying my mum somehow did much less work that the woman in the article?

This reminds me of the Chris Rock stand up on people he calls the 'N word' where he makes the point about people looking for credit for stuff they are supposed to do anyway. "I brought up the kids" isn't something one should be impressed by, it's what you're supposed to do when you have kids. All parents, regardless of income do it so I don't think it justifies the line "therefore I'm entitled to half whatever you earnt through your hard work/innovation".

Did Steve Jobs make Apple a success because he was good at what he did or because his wife was a good housekeeper? Conversely if Jobs had never married and employed a cleaner and chef instead are we saying they contributed to his success and therefore should be entitled to half of his wealth?

 

[sniffy]

Spot on estebanrey.

 

[Ev0]

I remember my dad telling me when he was getting divorced from his second wife that she was 'asking' for half of everything, for her to keep the house etc, when he had provided everything and she had never worked.

In the end I think she got 3 grand which in my opinion was still more than she deserved but still a good outcome from our/his side of things

 

[G J]

That's because Steve payed for the services of the cleaner and chef, his wife was doing him and as such she feels/needs to be compensated accordingly.

*This statement is fictional, don't sue me and take half my money.

 

[estebanrey]

That's because Steve payed for the services of the cleaner and chef, his wife was doing him and as such she feels/needs to be compensated accordingly.

I know you say that in jest but I'm sure the ex-wife in question here wouldn't be happy with a pay-off equal to the going rate of a cleaner/cook for her time.