buctootim Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 (edited) I hesitated about posting this up because of some the posts on the sexism and racism threads - but its an important issue imo. The Supreme Court have ruled that ex spouses can claim for a slice of their former partners waelth even if it was earned years after they split up. I understand the ruling that stay at home partners should share in wealth earned by spouses during the marriage and also that children should benefit - but why the fu ck should someone who divorced 20 years ago be entitled to a share of money their ex has subsequently earned through skill and graft with no input from them? Total injustice imo (and yes I have a lazy grasping ex who thinks I should pay for her four holidays a year). I had thought things were changing with a judge telling an ex spouse in February to 'get a job'. I guess not. This will just speed the gradual decline of marriage imo. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-22450272 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392 Edited 11 March, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 In many instances it is probably true that the wealth was only created because of the divorce. This is total lunacy in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I do not agree with this either. I have had problems with my ex. She remarried someone who eaens over £150,000 a year and still came after me for CSA payments even though I used to spend a fortune on the kids. Once the divorce settlement is done that should be it. You have to draw a line somewhere. If there are no children involved I can see no reason why the ex wife should not support herself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2015 In many instances it is probably true that the wealth was only created because of the divorce. This is total lunacy in my opinion. I know not all cases are as clear cut, but this one is ridiculous. They were married for three years when he was 20 and they lived on benefits. They split up 30 years ago and she divorced him 20 years ago. The money was only made after divorce. Bizarre. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I do not agree with this either. I have had problems with my ex. She remarried someone who eaens over £150,000 a year and still came after me for CSA payments even though I used to spend a fortune on the kids. Once the divorce settlement is done that should be it. You have to draw a line somewhere. If there are no children involved I can see no reason why the ex wife should not support herself. Im in a similar position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turkish Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 The court should ask them what the exs top 5 crisps are, if they get them wrong they clearly don't know the person and are entitled to FA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Don't get married. Works for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bridge too far Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I think the case was brought to establish a principle (as is often the case isn't it SOG?) - the principle being that there should be no limit to the time a claim can be made. Sometimes people say 'Whoah that's crazy' but case law has to be established and tested. I think, from reading the reports, she bore all the responsibility for raising their child and is seeking to reclaim some of that in monetary terms. The judge has said that it's unlikely she'll get close to the £1m she's claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I think the case was brought to establish a principle (as is often the case isn't it SOG?) - the principle being that there should be no limit to the time a claim can be made. Sometimes people say 'Whoah that's crazy' but case law has to be established and tested. I think, from reading the reports, she bore all the responsibility for raising their child and is seeking to reclaim some of that in monetary terms. The judge has said that it's unlikely she'll get close to the £1m she's claiming. Their son was born in 1981 and he didnt start his business until 1995. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 If you actually read it it doesn't seem that ridiculous. He is saying she has a right to claim for the years she brought up her son on her own and that she won't be getting anything close to the money she was claiming for. Seems reasonable imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2015 (edited) If you actually read it it doesn't seem that ridiculous. He is saying she has a right to claim for the years she brought up her son on her own and that she won't be getting anything close to the money she was claiming for. Seems reasonable imo. But they were both poor when the child was growing up. The whole principle of retrospective action is wrong imo. Should the state claim back benefits / tuition fees / costs of healthcare / education etc from people who later get rich or win the lottery? Edited 11 March, 2015 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Marriage is a risk just like anything else. I wouldn't be happy if I was in this bloke's shoes, but I've seen women have to raise kids on their own. It's not easy. No-one else to share the various burdens with, and it could be argued that many of the hardships she faced are a consequence of the breakdown of the relationship. Having raised my own kids in a two parent family, ms pap and I have had everything easier compared to a single parent. This won't destroy marriage, but I do reckon it'll provide more work for lawyers as people seek exemption from future financial claims as part of divorce settlements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I suppose the idea is that quite often in a marriage, one partner puts their career and/or education on hold and stays home by mutual agreement, or gets a lower paid job with more flexible and forgiving hours, while the other pursues their professional ambitions and makes far more money. Then it can be seen as unfair that only one of them suffers for this agreement when they split up and one has spent years progressing and increasing their earning potential and the other will be at an age where they have little chance of ever reaching the earning potential they would have had. That could still have an effect many years later, somebody starting a career path in their mid thirties is often not going to reach the heights they would have done starting out in their mid twenties. The partner not working professionally will have been doing something of value to both partners (raising kids, improving the home, being a ready and willing sex object, I don't know) and they would both have entered into that agreement mutually. I'm not expressing my own opinion about what's right or wrong, just thinking about the reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypochondriac Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 But they were both poor when the child was growing up. The whole principle of retrospective action is wrong imo. Should the state claim back benefits / tuition fees / costs of healthcare / education etc from people who later get rich or win the lottery? To be honest you would think a bloke with millions would offer to pay some back for the cost of his child. I know I would in that situation. 1.9 million is excessive though clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 To be honest you would think a bloke with millions would offer to pay some back for the cost of his child. I know I would in that situation. 1.9 million is excessive though clearly. Well, you wonder how "general" the problem is going to be. Is this something that's only going to affect millionaires and/or people with hugely acrimonious relationships with their ex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 So what happens if he won £20m on the lottery 15 years after the divorce - could she then claim more money Shouldnt this work the other way - the woman lands on her feet and gets a high paid job, has a successful business, marries a rich bloke etc - should the man get a rebate on money that he has already paid over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Marriage is a risk just like anything else. 'For richer or poorer...' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 11 March, 2015 Author Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I suppose the idea is that quite often in a marriage, one partner puts their career and/or education on hold and stays home by mutual agreement, or gets a lower paid job with more flexible and forgiving hours, while the other pursues their professional ambitions and makes far more money. Then it can be seen as unfair that only one of them suffers for this agreement when they split up and one has spent years progressing and increasing their earning potential and the other will be at an age where they have little chance of ever reaching the earning potential they would have had. That could still have an effect many years later, somebody starting a career path in their mid thirties is often not going to reach the heights they would have done starting out in their mid twenties. The partner not working professionally will have been doing something of value to both partners (raising kids, improving the home, being a ready and willing sex object, I don't know) and they would both have entered into that agreement mutually. I dont disagree with that - but I think thats a different situation to this one. Neither had money when the child was growing up and had no track record of earning any - so its hard to claim the mother was disadvantaged. The father's business didnt start until the son was 14 and likely didnt make much money until he was 18 at least. Where is the loss for the mother that would justify a claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I dont disagree with that - but I think thats a different situation to this one. Neither had money when the child was growing up and had no track record of earning any - so its hard to claim the mother was disadvantaged. The father's business didnt start until the son was 14 and likely didnt make much money until he was 18 at least. Where is the loss for the mother that would justify a claim? It's all hypothetical. I suppose the best way to answer that question is how much stuff have you had to do because you're a single parent, and how much has that stopped you from achieving? I've sacrificed stuff for my kids as part of a dual parent family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 I dont disagree with that - but I think thats a different situation to this one. Neither had money when the child was growing up and had no track record of earning any - so its hard to claim the mother was disadvantaged. The father's business didnt start until the son was 14 and likely didnt make much money until he was 18 at least. Where is the loss for the mother that would justify a claim? Pretty much impossible to say without more details than I've seen. If their living situation tied her to the home and their child and if she had custody that also limited her ability to progress her professional life for years after the marriage, while his role left him more free to develop the skills and connections that would later be invaluable in making him rich, then I can see a connection. It says she raised her son through "sixteen years of real hardship". That would definitely make it hard for her get into the same earning position as their situation left him in. He would have been left free to pursue his ambitions, while she did a huge amount of work on both of their behalves with no financial reward. He has at least partly made his fortune using freedom that she gave him by taking care of the child the made together. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate because it seems on this thread that it's needed. I'm not strongly opinionated here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doddisalegend Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Sounds like it would be easy enough to stop (from the Beeb article) The judgment is also a timely reminder that divorcing couples who want protection from such claims, even if they have no money at all, should obtain an order from the court at the time of the divorce, in which they both agree that there will be no further financial claims. Of course if you have a vindictive ex she/he might refuse on the off chance you get rich later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coxford_lou Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Pretty much impossible to say without more details than I've seen. If their living situation tied her to the home and their child and if she had custody that also limited her ability to progress her professional life for years after the marriage, while his role left him more free to develop the skills and connections that would later be invaluable in making him rich, then I can see a connection. It says she raised her son through "sixteen years of real hardship". That would definitely make it hard for her get into the same earning position as their situation left him in. He would have been left free to pursue his ambitions, while she did a huge amount of work on both of their behalves with no financial reward. He has at least partly made his fortune using freedom that she gave him by taking care of the child the made together. Again, I'm playing devil's advocate because it seems on this thread that it's needed. I'm not strongly opinionated here. As with all these things you have to judge on case by case basis, but on that description, there's something to be said for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simo Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Crazy decision (still doesn't mean she'll get anything mind) if it was me I'd leave the country ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 part of the terms of my divorce was that they will be no future claims from either side for anything anywhere. The only thing she is likely to get from me in the future is a bullet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 part of the terms of my divorce was that they will be no future claims from either side for anything anywhere. The only thing she is likely to get from me in the future is a bullet. Damn shame what happened to you and Teela. Do you still keep in contact with Man-at-Arms? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 *sits smugly in the bosom of a very happy & strong marriage* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LVSaint Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Damn shame what happened to you and Teela. Do you still keep in contact with Man-at-Arms? Who got custody of Cringer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Damn shame what happened to you and Teela. Do you still keep in contact with Man-at-Arms? This has gone completely over my head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Duckhunter Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 As Willie Nelson said " divorces are expensive , because they're worth it" . The bloke should just be glad he's rid of the money grabbing witch , if that costs him a few quid who cares ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trader Posted 11 March, 2015 Share Posted 11 March, 2015 Best of luck to either of my ex-wives trying to get money out of me. I haven't got the proverbial pot tp p*ss in. Life's so much simpler now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egg Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 This is not a landmark case. If claims are not cut off by a "clean break" order then both spouses are exposed to claims. The judge must to look at spouses resources, and their needs, at the time that he/she determines the case. If there's a need and the hubby can pay then he's exposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 (edited) This has gone completely over my head He-man and the masters of the universe? No? Edited 12 March, 2015 by farawaysaint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 He-man and the masters of the universe? No? These posters with avatars that they don't understand.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 He-man and the masters of the universe? No? There seems to be a few on here who are mistaking Roy of the Rovers for He-Man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 There seems to be a few on here who are mistaking Roy of the Rovers for He-Man. Blimey. I didn't realise that was Roy of the Rovers. Mind you, I was reading Spider-Man at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 There seems to be a few on here who are mistaking Roy of the Rovers for He-Man. The resemblance is uncanny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 (edited) This is not a landmark case. If claims are not cut off by a "clean break" order then both spouses are exposed to claims. The judge must to look at spouses resources, and their needs, at the time that he/she determines the case. If there's a need and the hubby can pay then he's exposed. He probably didn't even think about it when he was a happy careless hippy but it has come back to bite him in the bum now big time. Having sided with him at first and now having seen the item on the news last night apparently he has not provided for the child at all. Given that he is now minted would it really hurt to make some provision for the child? It may have been a brief liaison some time ago, but his 2 minutes and 52 seconds of squelching noises (as I think Johnny Rotten once charmingly called sex) did result in his partner becoming the mother of his child - don't think he should get away scot free on this one. Edited 12 March, 2015 by sadoldgit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smirking_Saint Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 Blimey. I didn't realise that was Roy of the Rovers. Mind you, I was reading Spider-Man at the time. Sorry pap but thats a lolsworthy fail bud Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 Sorry pap but thats a lolsworthy fail bud Black Spider-Man costume? Venom? The Six Spider-Men? I regret nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 He probably didn't even think about it when he was a happy careless hippy but it has come back to bite him in the bum now big time. Having sided with him at first and now having seen the item on the news last night apparently he has not provided for the child at all. Given that he is now minted would it really hurt to make some provision for the child? It may have been a brief liaison some time ago, but his 2 minutes and 52 seconds of squelching noises (as I think Johnny Rotten once charmingly called sex) did result in his partner becoming the mother of his child - don't think he should get away scot free on this one. His son has been living and working with him for some time. He also helped to raise her child from a previous relationship that she already had when she met him. I don't beleive she has been chasing the other fathers of her children for more money. This case has only got this far because he is funding both sets of lawyers, against his will. From what I can see the case now needs to go to the Family Court to determine how much, if anything, she should receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 Blimey. I didn't realise that was Roy of the Rovers. Mind you, I was reading Spider-Man at the time. Were you actually reading it or just looking at the pictures? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhilippineSaint Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 I had a letter from the court saying that a financial decision would be made at the next hearing. The ex never turned up the lilly livered judge would not make a decision in case it was overturned on appeal by her in the future. He then proceeded to say that she should get nothing but had the right to apply for another hearing if she ever turned up in the UK again. This leaves me in the position of the divorcr financial settlement never being completed. The laws an Ass I say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 His son has been living and working with him for some time. He also helped to raise her child from a previous relationship that she already had when she met him. I don't beleive she has been chasing the other fathers of her children for more money. This case has only got this far because he is funding both sets of lawyers, against his will. From what I can see the case now needs to go to the Family Court to determine how much, if anything, she should receive. Didn't know that Whitey, thanks for the info. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 12 March, 2015 Share Posted 12 March, 2015 Didn't know that Whitey, thanks for the info. My pleasure Lance Vince was on the Today programme this morning on Radio 4 giving his version of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now