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.

Click to expand...

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!)

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).

Infinite Chaos said:

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!)

Click to expand...

She's just looking for a little Jackpot Justice, and yeah, her claim should have been thrown out.

I've always hoped I'd become wealthy and be able to rub it in the face of my Exes.

WCH said:

I've always hoped I'd become wealthy and be able to rub it in the face of my Exes.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Infinite Chaos said:

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!)

Click to expand...

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?

tres borrachos said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

ttwtt78640 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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..