Divorced 20 years ago?

[NickFitz]

Very surprising that she won. Radio 4 had legal eagles on Today this morning, opining that she didn't really stand a chance in the circumstances

[FatLazyContractor]

I'll wait for GlenW's comments.

[barrydidit]

It's all very confusing when compared with the 'go get a job now your youngest child is 7' type case we had last week.
Edit - this one


I thought this morning that paying her a little bit as a good-will gesture might be a good idea. Looks like that would have been a damn sight cheaper now!

Maybe he could give her a job instead? Cleaning bird tulip off his windmills maybe.

[vetran]

they really need to draw up a legally backed decision tree and flow chart to decide what and how much 99% of divorcees get.

Such documents would answer most issues quickly and hopefully fairly without recourse to law.

[MicrosoftBob]

they really need to draw up a legally backed decision tree and flow chart to decide what and how much 99% of divorcees get.

Such documents would answer most issues quickly and hopefully fairly without recourse to law.

Then how would the lawyers make money

[GlenW]

I'll wait for GlenW's comments.

I'm totally gobsmacked. There must be facts that haven't been made public, this is ******* ridiculous.

[vetran]

Then how would the lawyers make money

selling their body on the streets would be best. Being alive would be optional.

[sal]

If i read the article correctly, she won the right to make a claim, and not the claim itself. Now she needs to make a claim that might be dismissed or a nominal sum awarded, like the Judge said it won't be anywhere near the £1.9m the greedy b**ch and her greedy b**ch lawyer demand.

[SueEllen]

I thought if you remarried spousal maintenance stopped? I still don't understand why ex wives who had no part in creating the wealth should get any spousal maintenance or significant share of wealth.

Those with Kids of course should be treated differently.

CSA were involved so he should have been assessed properly for maintenance at the time.

Marriage is viewed as a partnership so its presumed that the non-working spouse/spouse earning less did some of the non-earning work that kept the partnership going e.g. housework, gardening, diy and provided emotional support to help the greater earner earn his/her income.

Her claim must be without her input he wouldn't have made his millions.

I'm sure this case was in the media when the high court chucked it out.

[EternalOptimist]

He should put in a claim for 20 years of back-sh@gs

looking at the grid on her, that would be about two