D.I.V.O.R.C.E.

Die Neuen Prostituierteen

Landmark ruling in favour of money-grabbing new-age whore.

Five MILLION for 21 months

about time i say. here the wife has been entitled to half the joint estate for a long time now.

no, i have never been married or divorced.

My first reaction, especially when reading the first case was "good on them she's entitled to it"

Then I read this shit:

A judge had decided Mrs Miller was entitled to a substantial settlement because she married with "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle

what?

N.O.N.S.E.N.S.E

£250,000 a year for life to be a housewife? Good work, if you can get it.
However, this has been going on in the states for some time. Though I think that if a woman remarries, the alimony stops, so she'd best marry well again.

I don't begrudge the woman who gave up her career for the kids a penny, and frankly her ex-husband comes over as a bit of a dick for protesting.

But under three years of marriage with no children is a totally different kettle of fish. Expectation of a lifestyle my arse.

I bet the legal bills are scary too - probably another seven figure sum to the vultures too.

Shoulda been a one off payment- THE END.

BUT if kids are involved then maintainence should be payed until sproglet/s are 16.

Ongoing payments when no kids are involved is bloody ridiculous!

Have these men never heard of pre-nups? Not very romantic granted, but even so...

[magenta]Jem[/magenta] wrote: Have these men never heard of pre-nups? Not very romantic granted, but even so...

That's just what I was gonna say. They're not uncommon these days among rich folk, so maybe these guys are learning a lesson the hard way.

love an war

always surprises me what people feel intitled to- i guess if ya can live with yourself ......

I've never understood Gold diggers. All the money in the world won't make up for the fact you've got to shag some bloke you don't even fancy.

Been DIVORCED twice.It cost me an ARM and me HEAD! But i am HAPPY now

mossy wrote: love an war

always surprises me what people feel intitled to- i guess if ya can live with yourself ......

People having amazing ways of justifying all sorts of bad behaviour.

I should know

Pre-nuptial agreements don't actually have any legally-binding force in this country, they're simply an extra factor to account for in divorce cases (and rarely affect the outcome in any case). One of English law's biggest myths (along with the concept of a "common-law wife" - no such thing I'm afraid girls...)

Funny how you refer to Mrs Miller as a "new-age money-grabbing whore", when it was the husband who committed adultery. I'd leave my spouse if she fucked someone else, so why shouldn't she do the same? Plus, if she was really only after the money, she needn't have waited 21 months - 12 months is the statutory minimum length of time before a divorce can be granted in the UK. It always seems to be the fella who's hard done-to in these cases, in the eyes of most men. And let's not forget the guy's £17.5m fortune (and the rest, you don't honestly believe he disclosed all his financial details do you?), £5m isn't exactly going to send him onto the bread line is it? It's only because the sums of money involved are so astronomical that it's being reported by the press, if he worked in some call centre on £16,000 p/a she'd be lucky to get a bean out of it. The reason the judges have upheld the award is because they're trying to uphold "the sanctity of marriage", hoping that this will force people to think twice before diving into a "lifetime commitment" with someone you've known for all of about 25 minutes...

As every law tutor I've ever had always told me, if you want to keep hold of your fortune, don't get married!

EDIT: It was 33 months, not 21 months. Not much in the grand scheme of things, but still.

Atrocity Exhibit wrote: Pre-nuptial agreements don't actually have any legally-binding force in this country, they're simply an extra factor to account for in divorce cases (and rarely affect the outcome in any case). One of English law's biggest myths (along with the concept of a "common-law wife" - no such thing I'm afraid girls...)

.

Some states here have common law marriage. Alas, New York is not one of them...

Shellshocker wrote:

Some states here have common law marriage. Alas, New York is not one of them...

Fair enough, but as I said, not so in this country, yet the number of people who say "well, we're not married, but it IS a common-law marriage" is beyond belief. No wonder lawyers make so much money, considering 99% of the population haven't got a fookin' clue as to what the law is, unless it's something to do with licensing hours or ID cards.

There is a law on the books in North Carolina about Denial of Affection or something like that. It allows a spouse to sue the person had an affair with either their husband/wife.

There was one case about 5 years ago to where a wife was awarded close to $800k from a women who had an affair with her husband that ended up braking up their marriage. The woman only had a yearly income of like $29k, there was no way she was ever going to be able to pay off that award.

Psy

The only consequence of there being no such thing as common law wives is that people who aren't married can't make unreasonable demands on their partner’s estate unless they are married.

Unmarried couples who separate can, and often do, resort to the courts in order to divide their wealth. The real myth is that a bloke can push his bird out of his house after ten years of her paying half of the mortgage, just because the house is in his name. The intention is normally that the increase in the wealth of a relationship is generally divided fairly, regardless of marriage.

What's wrong is that the fact that someone had a nice day in an expensive white dress, they have the unearned right to a load of some blokes cash. And it's not normally the woman that decides this. It's the lawyers who push for the large settlements in order to get their names in the papers and earn their fat fee.

And don't jump to the conclusion that this guy played away from a happy home. Blokes with nice wives don't generally screw around. Ones that are shacked up with some poisonous bastard who normally has a headache are the ones you'll find 'working late' in the singles bars.

Allegedly.

I've heard the spousal behavior isn't usually a factor in British divorce cases. So much for that. At any rate, this doesn't bode well for Paul McCartney.

Guardian

A bit more detail from the Guardian.

According to his brief, she was a lazy cow who gave up work and just went shopping all day (I am paraphrasing a bit).

Now he has to give her the house and £2.8 million.

So it is wrong to call her a prostitute - they don't earn anything like that much and have to do far more work for their money.

Nice work if you can get it though

Shellshocker wrote: I've heard the spousal behavior isn't usually a factor in British divorce cases. So much for that. At any rate, this doesn't bode well for Paul McCartney.

The original ruling was that the guy's behaviour was a factor, this part of the decision has been overturned by the higher court.

Well, there's quite a lot of inconsistency regarding the division of wealth accrued over the course of a relationship involving cohabitation (i.e. no marriage), with no clean-cut rules - I haven't dealt with family law for about 18 months so am very rusty on it, but do remember one case involving a member of Judas Priest whose bird tried to get a share of the equity of the house they'd lived in, but got no joy.

The right to a chunk of the cash might be "unearned", but it's the way the law is trying to restore the "sanctity of marriage" (it's something which the Labour government has been harping on about for a fair while now, and was confirmed by the fact that there's no mention of the word "marriage" in any of the 600+ pages of legislation surrounding the civil partnership scheme introduced last year). Perversely, this new divorce settlement lark is more likely to increase the divorce rate as a few corporate wives decide to take advantage... At any rate, the story being in the papers doesn't affect the fat fee of the lawyers.

I disagree with your assumption about him playing away cause she was poisonous - we know that he accrued the wealth very rapidly over the course of the marriage. Can we be sure he wasn't out flashing the cash in a few swanky bars, lapping up the attention of all the Chardonnays, one of whom caught his fancy in particular? Let's not forget that there was a miscarried pregnancy in all this, which is often a factor in husbands going elsewhere (wife losing sex drive, depression, etc.). Also, I think the pregnancy does some discredit to any notions of her just being in the marriage for the money. Let's not forget that she gave up a tidy career earning £85k p/a, so it's not like she was a Vicky Pollard who happened to land on her feet. Plus, as I said before, £5m looks a lot on paper, but it's a fraction of the husband's total worth, and these things are all relative.

Psylocke Smythe wrote: There is a law on the books in North Carolina about Denial of Affection or something like that. It allows a spouse to sue the person had an affair with either their husband/wife.

There was one case about 5 years ago to where a wife was awarded close to $800k from a women who had an affair with her husband that ended up braking up their marriage. The woman only had a yearly income of like $29k, there was no way she was ever going to be able to pay off that award.

Psy

North Carolina is being such a nanny state! This is absolutely pointless, and low-class.

So it is wrong to call her a prostitute - they don't earn anything like that much and have to do far more work for their money.

See you have studied Punternet Col !

Digital Mike Binoshed wrote:

See you have studied Punternet Col !

I've seen what man can do. I've seen all the hate of a woman too