Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

  1. #1
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    A former New Age traveller whose ex-husband became a millionaire a decade after they separated has won a Supreme Court financial claim.

    --snip--

    Five Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled in her favour when they gave their verdict earlier. link.
    5 Supreme Court judges have just made the stupidest decision ever - suing someone for riches neither of you had while married is just plain wrong.

    Thoughts? (Apart from the guy hired the worst lawyers ever!)

  2. #2
    Guru
    Declan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 04:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    4,670

    Re: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    Seems more procedural than substantive. My state even allows a former spouse to go back in post divorce and make a claim for alimony if it was not waived/decided as part of the divorce for a period of half the length of the marriage after divorce. So if you were married 20 years, for instance, the wife could come back in up to 10 years after the divorce to make that claim (though most people do not preserve the issue and waive that right as part of the divorce).
    If I blow the conch and they don't come back; then we've had it. We shan't keep the fire going. We'll be like animals. We'll never be rescued.

  3. #3
    Dungeon Master
    anti socialist

    X Factor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Texas Proud
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:21 AM
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    44,727

    Re: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    5 Supreme Court judges have just made the stupidest decision ever - suing someone for riches neither of you had while married is just plain wrong.

    Thoughts? (Apart from the guy hired the worst lawyers ever!)
    She's just looking for a little Jackpot Justice, and yeah, her claim should have been thrown out.

  4. #4
    Sage
    WCH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    The Lone Star State.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    22,214

    Re: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    I've always hoped I'd become wealthy and be able to rub it in the face of my Exes.
    32 “Whoever acknowledges me before others, I will also acknowledge before my Father in heaven. 33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven.
    Matt. 10:32-33

  5. #5
    dangerously addictive
    americanwoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Seen
    12-16-17 @ 04:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    17,435

    Re: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    Quote Originally Posted by WCH View Post
    I've always hoped I'd become wealthy and be able to rub it in the face of my Exes.
    It's the best revenge to live well?


    Now on topic the article did mention a son, I could see a payment if as a father he never paid child support or anything which I don't think it really mentioned any prior support, but the payment just because they used to be married is pretty ridiculous.
    I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and everyone knows it.
    _____________________________________________

  6. #6
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,691

    Re: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    It is unclear from the OP link whether there was ever any official divorce (decree and settlement) or if they were just separated. It would seem that a divorce decree, once legally recorded, would be the last word. I could understand later adjustments in child support amounts (if expressed as a percentage of adjusted income in the decree) but not a later (re?)division of assets not present at the time of initial filing.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  7. #7
    Kinky
    tres borrachos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New England
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 03:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    39,234

    Re: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    Quote Originally Posted by Infinite Chaos View Post
    5 Supreme Court judges have just made the stupidest decision ever - suing someone for riches neither of you had while married is just plain wrong.

    Thoughts? (Apart from the guy hired the worst lawyers ever!)
    I think it's really awful.

    The couple met in 1981, when she was 21 and he was 19. They married later that year. She already had a child from an earlier relationship who was accepted as part of the family. They subsisted on state benefits.

    After moving to Norfolk, where their son was born in 1983, they parted. Vince began travelling, initially in an old ambulance converted into a camper van. He later drove to Spain with a new partner in a 30 year old fire engine. The couple were formally divorced in 1992. Wyatt subsequently had two more children from a later relationship.


    It's been 23 years since the divorce, and he has to give her money now? WTF was the Supreme Court of England thinking?
    Horse sense is the thing a horse has which keeps it from betting on people. ~W.C. Fields

  8. #8
    Sage
    Infinite Chaos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Last Seen
    11-19-17 @ 06:45 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    14,858

    Re: Court backs ex-wife over divorce cash

    Quote Originally Posted by tres borrachos View Post
    I think it's really awful.

    The couple met in 1981, when she was 21 and he was 19. They married later that year. She already had a child from an earlier relationship who was accepted as part of the family. They subsisted on state benefits.

    After moving to Norfolk, where their son was born in 1983, they parted. Vince began travelling, initially in an old ambulance converted into a camper van. He later drove to Spain with a new partner in a 30 year old fire engine. The couple were formally divorced in 1992. Wyatt subsequently had two more children from a later relationship.

    It's been 23 years since the divorce, and he has to give her money now? WTF was the Supreme Court of England thinking?
    The only thing I can think of behind the decision is that the child had 9 more years until he was 18 and then the mother couldn't claim child support payments. The only was to justify this is if the father became a millionaire in this time - he set his business up in '93 when the child would have been 11.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    It is unclear from the OP link whether there was ever any official divorce (decree and settlement) or if they were just separated. It would seem that a divorce decree, once legally recorded, would be the last word. I could understand later adjustments in child support amounts (if expressed as a percentage of adjusted income in the decree) but not a later (re?)division of assets not present at the time of initial filing.
    They were a poor couple so went through a simple divorce. Asking for no further action as part of the divorce is not something people think about (though obviously they should) especially when they are paying legal fees they can;t really afford.

    There's no mention of this decision being for child support costs though - more that she was advised she could try her luck as there was nothing to lose if the jugdes said "no" - it sounds very much like dividing assets not present at time of divorce.

    I seem to remember another case like this once..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •