Thinking of getting married...think twice!!

Thinking of getting married...think twice!!

11 posts
11 March 2015
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
It now seem you EX can come after your money any time after a divorce....even if you made your fortune in subsequent years.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392
Posted 11 March 2015
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
It's disgusting, although I suspect it's because there's kids involved. So, that being the case.... Thinking of getting married or having kids... think twice!!
Posted 11 March 2015
paule
Photographer
paule
The headline info: ex wife, divorced 20 years ago.. makes it seem ridiculous..

Then just scratch the surface... to see they have a son, that he may never have contributed towards bringing up.. and my sympathies align more to her side of the case..

We don't know the details of their history, just the headlines...

Their son should, definitely, benefit from his fathers wealth..

Posted 11 March 2015
OldMaster
Photographer
OldMaster
Yes...its not about her!! She is still very poor it seems and brought up their son herself. He is a castle owning multi millionaire who apparently has never, clearly, contributed anything proportionally?

If that is the case it's outrageous..he wouldn't even have noticed it!!

So enough, already, of the misogyny and scarcely concealed chauvinism!! I have been there twice myself..and it still staggers me how so many separating adults squabble over their own petty pride and arrogance and use their kids as weapons in negotiations.

It seems always to be the "elephant in the room" so many miss. It's not the kids fault and actually even greater efforts need to be made to ensure their lives aren't made hell just because the adults have f*cked it up...?

Posted 13 March 2015
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
As far as I can see the article makes no mention of any contributions to child maintenance or it being a problem...and had that been the problem it is likely the mother would have used the CSA. The article makes clear that they were both poor while married and also after their divorce for a period of time...and makes no mention of when his business eventually made him rich....probably after another few years.

The article appear to suggest that this is about (in this case) the ex wife thinking she is now entitled to a better lifestyle on the basis that he went on to build a better life for himself some years after their divorce. As I said, there is no mention of child maintenance issues in the article...or in any of the news reports I listened to.

This comment sums up the situation "Charmaine Hast, a senior family lawyer at law firm Wedlake Bell, said the case could establish guidelines on wealth acquired post-divorce for the first time."

It seems clear from what has been said so far, is that any EX can watch the financial progress / career of their 'other half' for any amount of time....and if it is advantageous...make a financial claim. There is no reference to gender in this ruling...sorry to pour cold water on that one.

Posted 13 March 2015
Edited by anthonyh 13 March 2015
EllessePhotography
Photographer
EllessePhoto..
Surely if he had never contributed towards his child's upkeep in the past, it would've been the main reason for her to base her claim on.

Sorry, have to agree it seems like gold digging to me.

Posted 13 March 2015
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Apparently they (his ex and child) hadn't really wanted for anything. They were bought appliances, cars, given money etc. as & when needed, but as he says... it's all lost in the mists of time and even the courts haven't kept records of what the original separation agreement was. If he'd known this would come to bite him he'd likely have been a bit more thrifty with keeping records.
Posted 13 March 2015
anthonyh
Photographer
anthonyh
RedChecker

Apparently they (his ex and child) hadn't really wanted for anything. They were bought appliances, cars, given money etc. as & when needed, but as he says... it's all lost in the mists of time and even the courts haven't kept records of what the original separation agreement was. If he'd known this would come to bite him he'd likely have been a bit more thrifty with keeping records.


The bottom line is however...why should he have needed to keep records?

It is accepted wisdom in law that a divorce absolute...as the term implies...is a final ( absolute ) break. Child care issues are seperate. This ruling appears to argue that divorce absolute has no real meaning so far as future claims on subsequent income / wealth are concerned.

Just to add to the discussion...what if he had become rich via an inheritance, say from a parent? Would an EX have a claim on this...wealth acquired by the parents?
Posted 13 March 2015
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
anthonyh

The bottom line is however...why should he have needed to keep records?


Agreed he shouldn't have, but it seems these judges involved thought otherwise in allowing her the green light to pursue this case (assuming that's the basis that made them come to their decision). 

She still may not get anything, but the fact they've allowed her to go ahead and effectively harass/cause unnecessary stress is worrying.
Posted 13 March 2015
profilepictures
Photographer
profilepictu..
Interesting stuff. I'm inclined to think, even if good, clothing and general maintenance are paid for children, there's still a significant detriment suffered by a parent engaged in caring, be it mum or dad. Not being able to work variable or extended hours without large child are costs being one point, but school holidays and illness etc cause havoc too, which isn't great for employed folks. If the judge has accounted for those circumstances, perhaps it's a fair call?

Posted 13 March 2015
RedChecker
Photographer
RedChecker
Any kids should have left home by now though (the marriage broke down around 30 years ago), that in mind it stinks of reeks of money grabbing.
Posted 13 March 2015
To reply to this thread you must be a member. Click here to join