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

[Lakeland9]

Steady on the outrage,chaps.

If the husband had agreed a settlement at the time of the divorce this would not have happened. At that time the cash would have been very modest indeed. Since he has been a dope in that sense and very astute in every other he has been ordered to make a settlement now. Opportunistic of the ex wife no doubt but if the husband hadn't been such a tit he would have been free and clear long since.

[shep1001]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I think smokin' is stretching the imagination a bit too far but still a vast improvement visually over wifey 1

[Justices]

£300k to never see that mug again is the bargain of the century!

[rb5er]

She has 4 children by different fathers. One is a convicted robber and prostitute. She looks like a hag. Quick give her 300k.

The hippy-gypo guy has really upgraded his Mrs.

[turbobloke]

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.

And within PH, which is home to you in case you forgot where you're posting, there's a thread about a chap who may well have concluded a financial settlement as part of his divorce decades ago, but no records exist. As a result he's over £1m down, the total of her award and his legal costs. Some people consider this to be unreasonable, and others agree that they have a point.

[Lucas CAV]

turbobloke said:

And within PH, which is home to you in case you forgot where you're posting, there's a thread about a chap who may well have concluded a financial settlement as part of his divorce decades ago, but no records exist. As a result he's over £1m down, the total of her award and his legal costs. Some people consider this to be unreasonable, and others agree that they have a point.

Seems daft.
Wouldn't there be records somewhere though?

[turbobloke]

Lucas CAV said:

turbobloke said:

And within PH, which is home to you in case you forgot where you're posting, there's a thread about a chap who may well have concluded a financial settlement as part of his divorce decades ago, but no records exist. As a result he's over £1m down, the total of her award and his legal costs. Some people consider this to be unreasonable, and others agree that they have a point.

Seems daft.
Wouldn't there be records somewhere though?

Apparently not. He doesn't, the Courts are said not to have any, and if she has any she's keeping quiet.

[V8mate]

Way back in the mists of time, my time at law school lodged the outcomes of certain legal situations deep into my grey matter.

One, was a quote by some LJ somewhere, which said that divorce put a man and a woman back into the position they were the day before they first met: strangers.

When did that principle change, such that you can call up strangers and ask for a slice of the wealth you played no part whatsoever in creating?

[Lucas CAV]

turbobloke said:

Apparently not. He doesn't, the Courts are said not to have any, and if she has any she's keeping quiet.

Presumably no solicitor involved.

[Lucas CAV]

V8mate said:

Way back in the mists of time, my time at law school lodged the outcomes of certain legal situations deep into my grey matter.

One, was a quote by some LJ somewhere, which said that divorce put a man and a woman back into the position they were the day before they first met: strangers.

When did that principle change, such that you can call up strangers and ask for a slice of the wealth you played no part whatsoever in creating?

If a financial settlement was not sorted officially? Sounds likely if there's no records...

[V8mate]

Lucas CAV said:

V8mate said:

Way back in the mists of time, my time at law school lodged the outcomes of certain legal situations deep into my grey matter.

One, was a quote by some LJ somewhere, which said that divorce put a man and a woman back into the position they were the day before they first met: strangers.

When did that principle change, such that you can call up strangers and ask for a slice of the wealth you played no part whatsoever in creating?

If a financial settlement was not sorted officially? Sounds likely if there's no records...

Ok. Let's say that's the case. It wasn't disputed that at the point of divorcing both were still all but broke. How many divorce settlements from 'normal', non-wealthy folk have a clause which says, '... but in the event I do sort my life out and earn some money...'?

[PurpleMoonlight]

V8mate said:

Ok. Let's say that's the case. It wasn't disputed that at the point of divorcing both were still all but broke. How many divorce settlements from 'normal', non-wealthy folk have a clause which says, '... but in the event I do sort my life out and earn some money...'?

A financial settlement via the Court should contain a clause that neither party will have further claim on the other.

The issue in this case is either a court settlement was obtained but no trace can be found or, more likely, they had little by the way of wealth at divorce and didn't bother with a formal court order.

I dislike that infamous firm of solicitors. They seem to want to prey on the wealthy for their own benefit and I cant help wondering if they seek out willing poor clients and work on a no win no fee basis for that. A council tenant would be unlikely to have the means to pay them anything if they lost.

[chow pan toon]

turbobloke said:

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.

And within PH, which is home to you in case you forgot where you're posting, there's a thread about a chap who may well have concluded a financial settlement as part of his divorce decades ago, but no records exist. As a result he's over £1m down, the total of her award and his legal costs. Some people consider this to be unreasonable, and others agree that they have a point.

Of course, given that no records have come to light, I would have expected that the normally cynical hereabouts would have come to a similar conclusion to me as to the veracity of this claim.

[Philplop]

Not saying I agree with the ruling at all, but the article doesn't mention that one of the children was his, and he left his ex wife to raise him alone. So maybe that has a bit to do with it.

[turbobloke]

Philplop said:

Not saying I agree with the ruling at all, but the article doesn't mention that one of the children was his, and he left his ex wife to raise him alone. So maybe that has a bit to do with it.

Surely that will have been taken care of in the initial divorce settlement - for which no records exist. That child has been an adult for some time so no trailing leg there surely.

[mjb1]

turbobloke said:

Philplop said:

Not saying I agree with the ruling at all, but the article doesn't mention that one of the children was his, and he left his ex wife to raise him alone. So maybe that has a bit to do with it.

Surely that will have been taken care of in the initial divorce settlement - for which no records exist. That child has been an adult for some time so no trailing leg there surely.

A slightly different, but valid, take/spin on it: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/...

I think I read in a news article a while back that he shirked his responsibilities as a father, hid his true income inside his companies to minimise child support payments etc. So morally, he's no better by the sound of it.

If there's no evidence of a clean break agreement as part of the divorce settlement, then legally she has done no wrong coming back for another bite now. Morally, is another story. But really, he is so wealthy now that the amount involved barely affects him. In fact, it's probably cost him about a million in legal fees, compared to the 300k that she's ended up with.

[turbobloke]

mjb1 said:

turbobloke said:

Philplop said:

Not saying I agree with the ruling at all, but the article doesn't mention that one of the children was his, and he left his ex wife to raise him alone. So maybe that has a bit to do with it.

Surely that will have been taken care of in the initial divorce settlement - for which no records exist. That child has been an adult for some time so no trailing leg there surely.

A slightly different, but valid, take/spin on it: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/...

I think I read in a news article a while back that he shirked his responsibilities as a father, hid his true income inside his companies to minimise child support payments etc. So morally, he's no better by the sound of it.

ISWYM and can understand that way of looking at it, but I trust you won't object too strongly if I repeat the old saying that two wrongs don't make a right.

Apart from anything else this is way, way too late to start dipping into the chap's wallet no matter how deep it became in the interim.

mjb1 said:

If there's no evidence of a clean break agreement as part of the divorce settlement, then legally she has done no wrong coming back for another bite now. Morally, is another story.

Indeed. My preference would be for alignment between the legals and the morals.

mjb1 said:

But really, he is so wealthy now that the amount involved barely affects him. In fact, it's probably cost him about a million in legal fees, compared to the 300k that she's ended up with.

Quite possibly, it was over half a mil before the final hearing. While agreeing that he won't notice, being stung will be worse than the modest (to Vince) financial hit.

[PurpleMoonlight]

The law needs changing.

It should not be possible to bring a financial claim against an ex spouse 20 odd years after the divorce.

This greedy witch originally wanted almost £2M remember.

[Sheepshanks]

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

Article indicates the £300K includes costs, although that may not be correct. However this case has gone on for years so you'd think Mischon de Reya fees would be pretty huge.

[Sheepshanks]

rb5er said:

The hippy-gypo guy has really upgraded his Mrs.

Hmmm...to steal a phrase, wonder what she saw in multi-millionaire Dale Vince?