Divorce lawyer who understands contractors

[MaryPoppins]

Would it help if I refused to recognize Flip Flops as "shoes" but instead as the offspring of satan?

Not really. I'm not a huge flip flop fan either mind.

[d000hg]

Ruling made by the Supreme Court: it may have been test case but now it is precedent.

Prenup just makes sense - the worst that can happen (if you manage to get married after proposing to sign prenup) is that it won't be deemed binding, at least you've tried.

The worst that can happen is you spend £thousands on legal fees to find out it's not binding.

[hyperD]

What's this got to do with earnings after the divorce? If both parties are on a similar financial footing when wed, splitting 50:50 at divorce is not unreasonable, it's all the other stuff which goes on which seems to be crazy

My dear d000hg, you are right: it's got nothing to do with that.

But as my post is obviously implying that I'm addressing the common preconception that in preparation for the FDR, people think they can hedge investments prior to the marriage and incidentally, weigh household contribution splits/earnings to their advantage during the course of the marriage.

Nothing can be further from the matrimonial truth.

Divorce is nasty - I was one of the lucky ones - eventually, clean break and no kids. I wouldn't wish this on my worse enemy.

And Mary Poppins: you are right - it is depressingly sad.

[AtW]

The worst that can happen is you spend £thousands on legal fees to find out it's not binding.

But the good news is that 50% of that money will be hers - it's like half price litigation if there was one!

[hyperD]

The worst that can happen is you spend £thousands on legal fees to find out it's not binding.

And in one sentence a fellow contractor has unlocked the matrimonial conundrum that inevitably leads one to a hopeless fiscal conclusion.

[SueEllen]

But the good news is that 50% of that money will be hers - it's like half price litigation if there was one!

Wasn't the Supreme Court ruling based mainly on the fact that the parties involved where both super rich foreign nationals and the guy was trying it on by using the English courts i.e. divorce tourism.

It happens in libel cases as well - the super rich try and have their cases in England because of our tulip libel laws which puts the onus on the person/organisation you say has libelled you to prove they haven't.

[AtW]

Wasn't the Supreme Court ruling based mainly on the fact that the parties involved where both super rich foreign nationals and the guy was trying it on by using the English courts i.e. divorce tourism.

No.

"The Supreme Court said it agreed that in the right case such agreements can have decisive or compelling weight."

Source: BBC News - Supreme Court rules in favour of pre-nuptial agreement

That does not (yet) mean that prenup is everything, however it should make job of a gold digger that much harder.

[shaunbhoy]

And in one sentence a fellow contractor has unlocked the matrimonial conundrum that inevitably leads one to a hopeless fiscal conclusion.

I wouldn't go setting much store by doofus's ramblings on the institution of Marriage. He got married in County Durham. Up there the wife comes with a dowry. Top notch totty up that neck of the woods come with a dozen sheep, a brace of whippets, a slack handful of racing pigeons, a box of fresh bloaters, and their own spear and jackson shovel.
Way ay..........Canny man!!

HTH

[MaryPoppins]

And in one sentence a fellow contractor has unlocked the matrimonial conundrum that inevitably leads one to a hopeless fiscal conclusion.

I've been asked to do a reading at my friend's wedding next year. I've made a note of that.

[AtW]

"Marriage is a game of two in which both lose." (c) Martti Larni

"Divorce is a game of two in which woman wins" (c) me