A lesson for any man that does not sort finances at divorce

[turbobloke]

irocfan said:

turbobloke said:

Presumably the guy didn't get a clean break divorce, or were the 'legalisticals' different?

It's fairly local to me and local radio are speculating how much she'll get after legal and other costs, and the view seems to be 'not that much'.

it was £300k AND her legal fees of £200k on top of that - certainly enough to buy a small gaff somewhere

Useless local radio!

There goes my unswerving belief in journalists

Then again, do we know if that legal costs award covered her outgoings in full or was simply a sum of money?

[Ari]

Presumably a 'clean beak' settlement at the time of divorce nullifies the possibility of this happening? (And presumably this couple didn't have one?)

[threadlock]

Jeez! There must be some technical legal reason why this is possible. Doesn't seem at all justified otherwise.

[Wacky Racer]

Dale Vince on Carpool.

Compelling viewing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzEhbWzIA9A

[Tango13]

If you have £57m in the bank what's stopping you from buying up all the houses next to and opposite where the SWT lives and renting them out to 'social housing' types?

[mondeoman]

threadlock said:

Jeez! There must be some technical legal reason why this is possible. Doesn't seem at all justified otherwise.

I'd like to know the rationale for it too.

[mp3manager]

Rick101 said:

I'll add this to my reasons not to marry list.

Edited by Rick101 on Friday 10th June 20:20

Agreed, it's a mugs game.

[turbobloke]

Mr Ecotricity said:

The passing of time was extremely prejudicial, it's been so long that there are no records, no Court has kept anything, and it's hard to defend yourself in such circumstances - indeed the delay itself has enabled the claim, because there is no paperwork in existence.

!!

[Pickled]

Tango13 said:

If you have £57m in the bank what's stopping you from buying up all the houses next to and opposite where the SWT lives and renting them out to 'social housing' types?

Did you not see where she lives? And she is a 'social housing type'

[MKnight702]

Tango13 said:

If you have £57m in the bank what's stopping you from buying up all the houses next to and opposite where the SWT lives and renting them out to 'social housing' types?

Looking at the photos, I think it's too late.

[turbobloke]

Just going back to the thread title and that quote from Vince, it appears he may well have concluded a settlement ~30 years ago but no records exist to verify what it was. It may well have been the case that finances were sorted but he couldn't prove it and she wouldn't want to try. All told this is most unsatisfactory (polite form).

[Bristol spark]

irocfan said:

it was £300k AND her legal fees of £200k on top of that - certainly enough to buy a small gaff somewhere

You can buy a rather large gaff in Monmouth (wales) for £300K!

[johnfm]

He builds wind farms. I would have preferred if she'd been awarded £57m to be honest.

[Trabi601]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I wonder what she sees in her multi-millionaire husband?

[catso]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Indeed, despite the injustice I think he is still winning...

[chow pan toon]

Ari said:

Presumably a 'clean beak' settlement at the time of divorce nullifies the possibility of this happening? (And presumably this couple didn't have one?)

Of course it does, but this is PH, home of the bitter misogynist.

[Moonhawk]

chow pan toon said:

Ari said:

Presumably a 'clean beak' settlement at the time of divorce nullifies the possibility of this happening? (And presumably this couple didn't have one?)

Of course it does, but this is PH, home of the bitter misogynist.

Erm - I for one would think this was just as fked up if it happened in a case were the genders were reversed.

Surely getting divorced means you go your separate ways. It's one thing if a party has withheld information pertinent to the divorce settlement that is only discovered years after the fact - but the ability to go after an ex who made their money years after the divorce was finalised is just wrong regardless of what 'bits' each party happens to have between their legs.

[Strocky]

This could signal open season for people who had brief relationships a quarter of a century ago. It's mad in my opinion.'

deserves to get fleeced for talking ste

[Strocky]

chow pan toon said:

Of course it does, but this is PH, home of the bitter misogynist.

You spelt cuckold wrong

[PurpleMoonlight]

chow pan toon said:

Of course it does, but this is PH, home of the bitter misogynist.

You say that as if it's a bad thing.