someone who did worse than our Divorcees

[NigelJK]

I'd run the business into the ground.

[vetran]

Not what the article says.

When their marriage hit the rocks and they split in 2013 their "extravagant" spending continued unabated.

That care free spending backfired when Judge Brasse ruled that, due to their profligacy, only enough money remained in the pot to meet the core housing and day-to-day needs of the wife and children.

Mr Morris had criticised his wife's own expenditure, and "vented his anger" pointing out that she had spent £5,000 on a 50th birthday party for herself after they split.

[vetran]

I'd run the business into the ground.

seems to be what he has done.

Not saying he is innocent but this assumption that life style should remain unchanged for the one who has contributed the least is a little odd.

[NigelJK]

£5,000 Birthday party, you kidding.

More like.

[NigelJK]

What the Judge rules and what happens in real life are as detached as the Judge is from reality.

[NickFitz]

Not what the article says.

In July last year another judge, Judith Hughes QC, ordered the husband to fork out £77,000 for unpaid maintenance and other debts "from his share", effectively leaving him with nothing from the marriage.

"The husband has had the money to pay the maintenance but has failed to prioritise it and has spent sums instead on himself and his enjoyment," Judge Hughes said.

Mr Morris had criticised his wife's own expenditure, and "vented his anger" pointing out that she had spent £5,000 on a 50th birthday party for herself after they split.

So he's spent £77,000 he was required by law to pay, but whines about her spending £5,000? Poor diddums

The bloke's a moron. I hope he continues to represent himself, given that his immense legal skills have, so far, landed him with a six week jail sentence. With a bit of luck he can work that up to six months

[NickFitz]

seems to be what he has done.

There's no suggestion that he's done that at all; the case seems to hinge on the fact that he's still doing very nicely out of it. Though how it will fare when he's in clink remains to be seen.

Not saying he is innocent but this assumption that life style should remain unchanged for the one who has contributed the least is a little odd.

Again, there's no suggestion anywhere that the settlement would result in her lifestyle remaining unchanged. In fact, the article explicitly states that she's gone back to work. That sounds like a lifestyle change.

Less than £500,000 in assets isn't really that much in the grand scheme of things. It presumably includes the value of the family home, and the maintenance would just about cover the children's school fees. Or are you suggesting the children must suffer along with the mother?

[mudskipper]

... the one who has contributed the least...

There is more to marriage than financial contribution. Whatever the rights and wrongs of any given case, this is the attitude I find most depressing. It suits many couples to have one at home (usually the woman) and one working. That does not mean the person at home is contributing less to the family.

[BrilloPad]

And look at this idiot

Property magnate killed himself when he realised 25-year marriage was over - Telegraph

Indeed. Complete moron. He should have taken a few with him.

[BrilloPad]

There is more to marriage than financial contribution. Whatever the rights and wrongs of any given case, this is the attitude I find most depressing. It suits many couples to have one at home (usually the woman) and one working. That does not mean the person at home is contributing less to the family.

And it does not mean that the stay at home person is a better parent.