• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

oh dear: Ex-wives win key divorce rulings

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    I'm ever the optimist!

    Comment


      #22
      Originally posted by Mailman
      The real problem with the miller case is that the judge took in to consideration the guy had f*cked around on his wife. The judgement sounded like the guy was punished for playing away from home, not for the woman losing her earning potential because she was looking after kids...oh thats right...they didnt have kids so what exactly has she been doing for the last three years! (obviously not blowing her husband! )

      However I agree with the second case as they had been married for 18 years and she most likely did actually contribute a hell of a lot to running the house and family over that time.

      Mailman
      I haven't read up on the judge's finding yet, but if this is true, it's a nightmare. Up to now, we have all been told that when it comes to financial settlement (& custody where there are kids), divorce is treated as a no-blame issue. In my case 2 yrs' ago, this was hammered through over and over again by the judge (& my barrister). Even though my ex was found 100% to blame, it was irrelevant IRO settlement (and I paid out 60%).

      Now if the Miller case is setting the precedent for factoring in blame to the settlement, this will be too subjective for all involved. The injuring party may feel they got stung too much; the injured party may feel they got too little. I can also see that where up to now, it might just have been possible for the parties to have a working relationship post-divorce (e.g. where kids are involved), because of the no-blame scenario, the new blame-to-settlement equation will make this impossible - one party will be left completely embittered, with no chance of patching up. Again, really applies where kids involved.

      A cretinous development, if true. I understand Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss has responsibility for moving family law into the 21st Century. What on earth is she doing?
      "My God, it's huge!!"

      Comment


        #23
        My advice to both blokes is to sell up and move to a country with no extradition treaty with the UK. How much would these evil gold-digging whores get then, eh? F uck all!!!
        The possibility of this happening should have been pointed out earlier to the spouses involved and some sort of "take it or leave it" deal worked out.
        We must strike at the lies that have spread like disease through our minds

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by Fleetwood
          My advice to both blokes is to sell up and move to a country with no extradition treaty with the UK.
          Country like Iran or North Korea?

          Comment


            #25
            Just a thought: Poor old Macca's fortune is going to get sliced & diced by darling Heather....
            "My God, it's huge!!"

            Comment


              #26
              I'm pretty sure France doesn't have one with the UK... IIRC of course
              We must strike at the lies that have spread like disease through our minds

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Fleetwood
                I'm pretty sure France doesn't have one with the UK... IIRC of course
                I am pretty sure there are EU agreements to ensure reasonably smooth deportations - there is Interpol too.

                But the good thing is that if you live in France then prenup agreements are binding, I wonder however whether if you marry in France with prenup and then move to the UK, then divorce case will be handled locally in the UK, so prenup stuff will be worthless.

                Comment


                  #28
                  It's not a pre-nup, it's a marriage contract, which is not the same thing, but what's important is that aberrations such as those we have seen today are not possible under French law.

                  You could also country-hop, and wait for a case to come to court in country A, before moving to country B. She'd give up trying eventually.
                  Last edited by Fleetwood; 24 May 2006, 13:29.
                  We must strike at the lies that have spread like disease through our minds

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Right then, I'm blowing my wad (!) on a pad in the South of France.

                    Come the day of reckoning I'll p1ss off there!

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Good idea, Shim, BUT.....
                      In France, an English marriage is treated as "communauté des biens" meaning a fifty-fifty split of everything, which might not be what you want. Much better and commoner is "séparation des biens", where, whatever happens, each person will take out of the marriage what they brought into it. The only goods split are those acquired during the marriage, if in both spouses' names.
                      Maintenance for children is much more reasonable, and there is no idea of future earnings when maintenance for the wife is calculated.
                      So, get married in France, and when things start to go tits up, go and live there.
                      We must strike at the lies that have spread like disease through our minds

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X