You may be asked to reset your password when you try to login. This is part of a system update and is genuine, so it's safe to go ahead and do that. If you no longer have access to the email address you used to register, please email us at [email protected] rather than creating a new account. Apologies for the inconvenience.

Women win millions in divorce case

24

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The way I see it in a situation with one rich partner, and one with effectively nothing, is this. Any earnings of the rich partner during the marriage should be split 50/50, including any interest earned on what was there initially (to take into account the amount of money the rich partner had originally). Marriage is a partnership, and I think it should be understood that anything earned, is earned as a partnership. But this talk of Paul McCartney's wife getting £200m of his £800m fortune, the vast majority he earned before she was even born, is bullshit. I don't know how someone can marry someone who's already extremely rich, and then claim that they contributed to the fortune somehow.

    As for kids, I think that they should be treated completely seperately, and after the rest of the finances are split, the courts should make sure that each parent is contribuing based on their ability to pay.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hey, if it was the otherway around and i was in a horrible marriage and wanted a divorce with the courts in the man's favour, i would use been a man to get the best result.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think pretty much all modern divorce seperates child support from alimony, so it is delt with based on what parents have available - though I'm sure Fathers 4 Justice would argue that one.

    As to the £200 million, I'm taking that with a pinch of salt at the moment, it just seems to be being pushed most by the papers whose perspective tends to see women as gold diggers.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    As for anything about courts favouring women - whilst I doubt it is anything deliberate, results to tend to show this - there are women who makes careers out of this and get rich. Also some Solicitors tell women who are divorcing to go for it all and take the man for every penny he has. Because it is possible. The courts are a bunch of tits anyway, they make some idiotic rulings. I don't have the women - I just hate the idiocy of the rulings.
    That's just because it tends to be the man who's the rich party in the marriage. I'm sure that if the opposite was the case, then the lawyers would be saying exactly the same thing to the man, because they will likely get a percentage of anything they win out of the settlement.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    As to the £200 million, I'm taking that with a pinch of salt at the moment, it just seems to be being pushed most by the papers whose perspective tends to see women as gold diggers.
    That was a figure quoted by a divorce lawyer I saw on TV. He reached that figure based on other similar high profile cases, but he did say that he expected a minimum of £120m.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Women get MORE than 50/50 alot of the time these days in a divorce. If a househusband were divorcing a working woman, this question, the trials, would not even have happened. We think men will "get by" somehow.

    That is just untrue.

    If a man had taken charge of the parenting role during the marriage - and been the "house husband" of whom we speak - and was going to continue to be the main custodian of the children post-divorce then of course he would be given a fair hearing and awarded his dues in terms of the marriage and the maintenence he would require in the future. However, I think that proportionally there are far, far fewer husbands who are given or take on that role of sole or main custodian... it therefore baffles me that people would deny a woman a good settlement and reliable future payments when she is more than likely going to be looking after the kids (hypothetically the job she was doing throughout the marriage and being supported financially) and have to get a job to provide the suddenly disappearing finances. As for people scoffing at and rubbishing the idea of keeping people in the lifestyle they are "accustomed to" - I agree with keeping people (children, especially) in the lifestyle they are accustomed to, and I think as far as possible a status quo should be maintained for their sake. But yes, I also don't see why the childless ex-wife should suddenly have to take a nose-dive because she didn't have the foresight (during the "happy days that shall last forever and ever", as I said before) to insist on continuing to earn a big fat wedge in preparation for the inevitable split. If that's the way people actively go into marriage these days, then you can count me out.

    To imply that even in that situation of the husband having being the main caretaker [and remaining so post-split] that the woman would undoubtedly come off better and not have her finances garnished equally is pretty offensive to me.

    With that, I'm out ;)
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Why do we bring Children in? I am in no way talking about that. Of course I think the father, if he is one, should pay allowances for children - they are his fucking kids, it's his responsibility.

    I am not talking about this. I have said this already. In a non-children concerned situation, why should the woman get more, she is not being the custodian, and has no real entitlement to any of his earnings... so why does she get them?

    If their are children, or the man told her to giveup her job, ok, fair enough. Otherwise... why? Did she go to work and do his work? Yes, so the wife shouldn't have to take a "nose dive" in her lifestyle. So, the man should have to so she can continue her happy life? Yes, Marriage should be something we go into in a happy positive way. But, I can't help but feel with the soaring number of Marriages and Divorces people aren't taking it seriously these days.

    Either way. I say you take out what you put into a marriage, in the basic scenario, without kids, etc. You don't take half of the other person's stuff when you leave.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Either way. I say you take out what you put into a marriage, in the basic scenario, without kids, etc. You don't take half of the other person's stuff when you leave.

    Well if she hadn't been earning (for whatever reason) and then come the end of the relationship she didn't get a good settlement then she's in a pretty fucking tight situation come the end of the marriage, isn't she.

    For [a childless] example, if a woman managed the house and a man had a job and earned the wages then those are what they tangibly "put in" to the marriage. The man walks off with his previous earnings and his continuing wage (possibly quite high through consistent years of employment) and what does the woman walk off with if not a healthy cut, or the house? Maybe she should just pack up her tea cosies and Domestos and leave with what she put in, but I don't think so. If a marriage is a partnership then everything is taken to be shared, "ours", it then gets fiercly ugly when you're in splitsville and sudddnely everything becomes "mine" again.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    briggi wrote:
    Well if she hadn't been earning (for whatever reason) and then come the end of the relationship she didn't get a good settlement then she's in a pretty fucking tight situation come the end of the marriage, isn't she.

    For [a childless] example, if a woman managed the house and a man had a job and earned the wages then those are what they tangibly "put in" to the marriage. The man walks off with his previous earnings and his continuing wage (possibly quite high through consistent years of employment) and what does the woman walk off with if not a healthy cut, or the house? Maybe she should just pack up her tea cosies and Domestos and leave with what she put in, but I don't think so. If a marriage is a partnership then everything is taken to be shared, "ours", it then gets fiercly ugly when you're in splitsville and sudddnely everything becomes "mine" again.

    Exactally why I don't want to get married. :p Besides, I don't see why I need some confirmation to affirm my love, that I have to pay for.

    I just don't feel that if one partner has worked hard alot, and made thier money, then, why should the other run off with it all if a breakup occurs? Say it was you. You had worked a full time job supporting your chap, who stayed at home all the time, a househusband. How would you feel if the courts ruled that he got 50% of your income and 50% fo the property in the house/flat? When he has not worked and just done cleaning, tidying, etc.

    Surley rather unfair? This is exactally why people should, as Jim V suggested, get a good prenup. It solves these issues. All it takes is a Solicitor, and it saves having to go through this agro. You can safeguard your assets that way. And if the other partner doesn't want to - surley alarm bells should ring?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Again though, you seem to be assuming the other partner hasn't worked hard. What about a situation where a wife has worked her hands to the bone for the family, but never seen a penny and has then been left in the lurch by her partner - with no job history, with no previous employment, with no references or education?

    Surely you can see that you seem to be implying that being a housewife is just some kind of extended holiday...
  • BunnieBunnie TheSite's sweetie pie Posts: 6,099
    briggi wrote:
    Well if she hadn't been earning (for whatever reason) and then come the end of the relationship she didn't get a good settlement then she's in a pretty fucking tight situation come the end of the marriage, isn't she.

    For [a childless] example, if a woman managed the house and a man had a job and earned the wages then those are what they tangibly "put in" to the marriage. The man walks off with his previous earnings and his continuing wage (possibly quite high through consistent years of employment) and what does the woman walk off with if not a healthy cut, or the house? Maybe she should just pack up her tea cosies and Domestos and leave with what she put in, but I don't think so. If a marriage is a partnership then everything is taken to be shared, "ours", it then gets fiercly ugly when you're in splitsville and sudddnely everything becomes "mine" again.
    this example is perfect! [give or take maybe a couple of pairs of rubber gloves!] its saying exactly what i was trying to say before.

    you also have to consider the factor that some of the money is given as a certain example of compensation. If you fell over in the street because of a wonky flagstone you would sue the council, if somebody printed libellous remarks about you, you would sue them, if an operation went terribly wrong you would sue the hospital etc. If a husband cheats on his wife, this causes hurt, pain and embarrassment, and some of the money is classed as compensation.

    The reason why you think that the men get a worse deal, is that in the majority of cases children are involved, and a huge percentage of the time they stay with their mother, and it is ALWAYS the priority of the court to deal with a child's best interests, and therefore will award more to a mother.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Yes, I see the issue. I also think 50% is too steep, and also, isn't the State there to solve this issue? The working partner has paid taxes. Surley the Housewife cna sign on for benefits? Isn't this why they are there, to help people in such a situation until they get a job?

    Wouldn't you feel like you are getting a bit ripped off as well, if you were the working partner, and you had to hand over 50% of what you'd earned? When your partner had done little? And whilst being a housewife isn't easy - if the chores can be managed well by a couple who both work - and many, many, couples manage this whilst both working - can they really require the full time attention given by staying at home and not working?

    Also, this 50% thing opens it up for gold diggers really well.

    I guess I just have a problem with the fact that someone who has worked all throughout the marriage having to hand over half their wage to someone who hasn't. It just seem unfair. Sure, they'll need financial help when leaving the marriage... but aren't benefits there for this?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think I'd see myself as a partner not as the 'working' partner - that's why someone is a partner, not a cohabitant or a maid.

    And £35 per week and living in a B&B after being thrown out by someone earning £50,000 a year?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    And remember there are still a vast number of men, especially richer men, who would encourage their wives NOT to work during the marriage.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Jim V wrote:
    And remember there are still a vast number of men, especially richer men, who would encourage their wives NOT to work during the marriage.

    And, as I said earlier - should the man do this it - it is his responsibility to provide for her.

    If the woman choses to do it herself - her choice.
  • BunnieBunnie TheSite's sweetie pie Posts: 6,099
    how much do you think people are given in benefits?! it is the bare minimum.

    Ok, so seeing as were having hypotheticals, how about you were married, and you were then left with nothing. You were well educated, but couldnt get a job due to lack of experience, your age and no references. You had been experiencing a good lifestyle, and we suddenly left with nothing. no home, no money and no way of getting any. But someone came up to you and said, oh its ok, we can put you on benefits.

    You wont see your friends much as they live in a different area of town, you will be living with people who you feel are nothing like you, dealing with trouble you have never witnessed before and generally feeling rather shit and alone. You think someone should go through this? I dont. If their partner can afford to pay them some form of 'allowance' then that should be the way. If every woman who was divorced ended up on benefits, there would be none left for the people that need them, and eventually it will increase the taxes that come out of yours and my pockets.

    It is not necessarily that the wife will be awarded 50% of the husbands estate, it is dependant on circumstances as i said before.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I dont understand is why she should get £250,000 for life.

    Basically she could live in luxury for the rest of her life now at his expense.

    Not sure thats fair.

    If its more close cut, then ok - but how can you justify being entitled to that money for life? Even in 30 years time he's still going to have to be shelling out money to her, how is she helping him then? She sounds like shes just out to see what she can get tbh.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Bunny_0_ wrote:
    how much do you think people are given in benefits?! it is the bare minimum.

    Ok, so seeing as were having hypotheticals, how about you were married, and you were then left with nothing. You were well educated, but couldnt get a job due to lack of experience, your age and no references. You had been experiencing a good lifestyle, and we suddenly left with nothing. no home, no money and no way of getting any. But someone came up to you and said, oh its ok, we can put you on benefits.

    You wont see your friends much as they live in a different area of town, you will be living with people who you feel are nothing like you, dealing with trouble you have never witnessed before and generally feeling rather shit and alone. You think someone should go through this? I dont. If their partner can afford to pay them some form of 'allowance' then that should be the way. If every woman who was divorced ended up on benefits, there would be none left for the people that need them, and eventually it will increase the taxes that come out of yours and my pockets.

    It is not necessarily that the wife will be awarded 50% of the husbands estate, it is dependant on circumstances as i said before.

    Well perhaps instead of taking it off of the other partner the state could pay for the better quality of life? The idea it isn't possible through lack of money is a lie. If the state got its act into gear and stopped forking out for actual spongers and wasting money on stupid bureaucratic shit it could do it and have change left to do it again. The fact is, the country is in a mess all over. It all needs balancing out. The state should help those who get the worse deal in a divorce out, and support them until their life is in order.

    As well as screwing up the partner who has to pay to support his or her Ex, it also alienates the two furthur. The partner who is having to pay resents having to pay for the Ex, and the Ex resents having to still, after divorce, be dependant upon their Ex.

    It isn't a happy circle.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jim V wrote:
    I think I'd see myself as a partner not as the 'working' partner - that's why someone is a partner, not a cohabitant or a maid.

    And £35 per week and living in a B&B after being thrown out by someone earning £50,000 a year?
    Well let's say that the husband had assets worth £1m, all of which was earned before they got together, and earned £50,000 a year while they were married. I would say that if she didn't work, she should be entitled to £25,000 for each year they were married, plus half of any interest/money earned from the £1m assets. But she should under no circumstances be entitled to half of the assets themselves, since she has not contributed to acquiring them in the first place. This would give her plenty of time and money to rebuild her own life, and of course the husband would pay any child maintainance seperately.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    That's always gonna be the difference in viewpoints - you genuinely don't think she's done anything to help earn that money, I can see what the effect of a good marriage or partnership has, and that it would have directly effected the ability to earn that money.
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Aye.

    We differ. I don't think she's done anything to earn the money (To be fair - not always women. My mum works with a lass who has to support her husband who is doing loads of Uni degrees.) and as such, isn't really entitled to it. If they say, worked together to make alot, then it should be split equally. If they haven't, the one who has worked gets it.
  • BunnieBunnie TheSite's sweetie pie Posts: 6,099
    All it boils down to is that youre views on marriage are different from others, not that it is a bad thing obviously. But I believe that marriage is a partnership in which should not be entered lightly, and should be (certainly at the beginning) seen to be forever. This is why I'm not a fan of pre-nups.

    I sort of get the impression you're not one that ones to be married in the future, and thats obviously your choice.

    This is not the first case where someone has been awarded a substantial amount of money in a divorce and will certainly not be the last. but please remember, the courts do take into consideration many things the media dont explain...dont believe everything you read. ;)
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Bunny_0_ wrote:
    This is why I'm not a fan of pre-nups.
    Surley you can see why they are a good idea? In the event of breaking up... you have assured your assets are secure and you won't be screwed over! It'd also make any man you are with realise it is serious. :yes:
    Bunny_0_ wrote:
    dont believe everything you read. ;)
    I never do. My parents buy the Mail. :yuck:
  • BunnieBunnie TheSite's sweetie pie Posts: 6,099
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    Surley you can see why they are a good idea? In the event of breaking up... you have assured your assets are secure and you won't be screwed over! It'd also make any man you are with realise it is serious. :yes:

    yeah i can see in the long run, why they are a good idea, i just dont think you should be going into marriage with the thought that it wont work long term. if this is the case, you shouldnt get married in the first place.
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I never do. My parents buy the Mail. :yuck:
    Damn sight better than the Mirror :p
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Bunny_0_ wrote:
    yeah i can see in the long run, why they are a good idea, i just dont think you should be going into marriage with the thought that it wont work long term. if this is the case, you shouldnt get married in the first place.
    I see your point.
    But in the same vein, you don't get into your car expecting, or even thinking that you will crash on the journey. Yet you still fasten the seatbelt. Good to be prepared - and if both partners are intending that the relationship works - the prenup will never be needed, so no need to worry you got it?
    Bunny_0_ wrote:
    Damn sight better than the Mirror :p
    I'd rate them about as bad as each other.
    Guardian is where its at.
  • BunnieBunnie TheSite's sweetie pie Posts: 6,099
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I see your point.
    But in the same vein, you don't get into your car expecting, or even thinking that you will crash on the journey. Yet you still fasten the seatbelt. Good to be prepared - and if both partners are intending that the relationship works - the prenup will never be needed, so no need to worry you got it?

    I dont think seriously, long and hard everytime I get in the car like I should before my wedding, but i can see your point
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I'd rate them about as bad as each other.
    Guardian is where its at.
    We were told in 1st year that we should buy the Times every day. I can honestly say I have bought it no more than the fingers I have on both hands :lol:
  • Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Stalin's Organist Posts: 13,327
    Bunny_0_ wrote:
    I dont think seriously, long and hard everytime I get in the car like I should before my wedding, but i can see your point

    True... true that. When I get in a car to drive, I always think "Shit. Who the hell sat in this before me, this is all wrong!"
    Bunny_0_ wrote:
    We were told in 1st year that we should buy the Times every day. I can honestly say I have bought it no more than the fingers I have on both hands :lol:
    I have bought less papers than the fingers on both hands. I find thme on trains. :D

    Why on earth did they tell you that though? :lol:
  • BunnieBunnie TheSite's sweetie pie Posts: 6,099
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    I have bought less papers than the fingers on both hands. I find thme on trains. :D

    Why on earth did they tell you that though? :lol:
    I dont know, something to do with being able to see how much law was in today's media...and they wanted us to watch newsnight...erm, no, how about that! lol!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What I dont understand is why she should get £250,000 for life.

    Basically she could live in luxury for the rest of her life now at his expense.

    Not sure thats fair.

    If its more close cut, then ok - but how can you justify being entitled to that money for life? Even in 30 years time he's still going to have to be shelling out money to her, how is she helping him then? She sounds like shes just out to see what she can get tbh.



    exactly noone should have the expectation of living in wealth from past experiences

    im not saying put the person in abject poverty, im just saying she shouldnt be living in luxury because she is used to it
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,328 The Mix Honorary Guru
    im just saying she shouldnt be living in luxury because she is used to it

    No but she should be if she has contributed to it's creation.

    I have concerns about one case, but where the lady in question gave up her own career to care for their children whilst he worked, I think she has earned every penny.
Sign In or Register to comment.