If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Woman wins right to ex-husband's future earnings
BillieTheBot
Posts: 8,721 Bot
The ex-wife of England and Arsenal star Ray Parlour has won her legal fight for maintenance amounting to more than a third of his future income.
Karen Parlour was told by the Court of Appeal her award of £250,000 a year personal maintenance would go up to £406,500 and be reviewed in four years.
She said she was "very relieved at the outcome of the appeal".
Ms Parlour's lawyer had argued she rescued his career and was entitled to more of his £1.2m-a-year income.
Full story
So, is it a fair ruling? Should an ex-partner earn the right to future earnings instead of a fixed adequate maintenance amount? And will men, as they always tend to be, the ones affected worst by such ruling?
Karen Parlour was told by the Court of Appeal her award of £250,000 a year personal maintenance would go up to £406,500 and be reviewed in four years.
She said she was "very relieved at the outcome of the appeal".
Ms Parlour's lawyer had argued she rescued his career and was entitled to more of his £1.2m-a-year income.
Full story
So, is it a fair ruling? Should an ex-partner earn the right to future earnings instead of a fixed adequate maintenance amount? And will men, as they always tend to be, the ones affected worst by such ruling?
Beep boop. I'm a bot.
0
Comments
but if its disposable income, why the hell should she be entitled to his FUTURE income as she should get a job like us normal people!!!
and men always get treated unfairly in the courts
the 50:50 rule + maintenence in courts for actual things owned is possibly fair if they been together through lots but no more
Man and woman split up. Man gets screwed into the ground by woman. That's how the Family Court works in this country.
However, the tide is turning. A woman completely lost custody of her child after she refused to obey court orders, and it looks like it will be set as a precedent. The trouble is that there is no way of making a woman obey the court orders without jailing her, and they won't do that because of the child's welfare.
men get double screwed in court, the women take his money and then claim he dont have financial ability to look after them, wonder where his money went hmmmmmmmmm :chin:
Greedy bitch, why doesn't she accept the couple of million quid, the 2 mortgage free houses and then fuck off and get a job.
What a joke, fair enough, give his kids good maintenance but she can earn her own f-ing money.
I don't like Ray Palour but what could this mean for future blokes in the same boat.
In the article it says she's releived at the result. Who wouldn't be if they are earning a third of a proffesional footballers salary for doing absolutely nothing?
Divorce agreements in the UK are based on the idea of a clean break - giving enough money in one go that there is no need for future payments.
There is rarely enough money or assets so agreements are made for alimony.
In this case the wife asked for 440,000 every year. The judge decided that because the footy player didn't have enough assests to make a clean break at that point (essentially being the assest himself) he would award the large payment for four years only and she will be required to invest the money for her future.
It is apparently clear that after the four years she will recieve no alimony - not continue at the same rate or recieve more.
Apparently this is just one of those completely normal legal situations that the press has decided to focus on because of a stars involvement.
But to make it clear again - after four years the review will probably massively reduce the amount of money paid, not as some articles imply, increase the amount.
(obviously he will continue to pay maintence but that's a seperate issue from alimony)
I agree with what you've all said! If I was Ray Palour I'd consider retiring and sitting on my backside for the next four years, then taking up a position in coaching/management after that.
:yes: or go and play abroad... just to complicate matters for the money grabbing bitch
The agreement is up for review in four year, so he may have to pay after then too.
IF a woman props up her husband through law school, say, then she has invested in his career. therefore if he splits with her she is entitled to reap the rewards of her investment. Especially as, quite often, the woman sacrifices her own career to help her husband's.
What galls me about this case is that her alimony is not in proportion to her investment.
Bullshit. All the footy players drink loads, most of the bloody country does.