Reply to: Just to cheer up BP

[DodgyAgent]

Utterly appalling. After divorce it is reasonable that partners should get their share of what they contributed to the couple's wealth or otherwise be put back into the situation they would probably have been in had they not married. Anything more is wrong in principal.

The law is an idiot. These women have gone off and should get down to the gym and get a job.

FTFY

[vetran]

This made me laugh


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/...4952483026.jpg

[BrilloPad]

New year, New Wife, New life ........

FTFY

[unixman]

For longer marriages the contribution is not measured in simple financial terms, but also takes into account mutual support, running the household, child care etc. It would be, in my view, morally wrong to not take these things into account. Part of marriage is giving up your singleness and all that entails for and to the other person - that must be quantified. You can't go back to the state you were in before the marriage, because you did get married - nobody forced you.

I agree that this is the only fair way for longer marriages. (Long enough the children have all grown up). It should be an exactly even split.

For shorter marriages it is different. Treating them the same is where problems come in. Eg the wife gets half of a millionaire's fortune, that he accumulated before they ever met. Or half the house he owned outright before they ever met. There is first the problem of the unfairness, then the unforeseen consequence which is that divorce starts to become an attractive option for some people.

Also I believe the govt. should make divorce more difficult, not more attractive for one party. It should offer help to couples and do everything it can to keep 'em together wherever remotely possible. Where divorce does happen, it should enforce fathers' visitation rights (which are routinely flouted) with hard punishments. Children need fathers. And mothers.

[vetran]

Indeed. But this is BP, I'm worried.

New Wife, New life ........

[BrilloPad]

Indeed. But this is BP, I'm worried.

I think you are confusing me with someone else. I have always fought for the rights of children.

[pr1]

The only problem with this is that it only takes into account money. You get married, she decides to spend her husbands income on holidays abroad, studying, having dinners out etc. while he does 12 hour shifts 5 nights a week

When they split up, she gets half of the money. But he doesn't get half of the holidays, half of the education, half of the time off, half of the fancy restaurants. She doesn't get half of his burden of working so having to work 6 hours a day 5 days a week for x years.

So I would say it is morally wrong not to take those things into account.

And since you can't directly do that, you should probably look into the circumstances of both people as individuals and how they behaved during that period, and compensate accordingly.

that sounds easy to quantify in court, are you a lawyer by any chance?

[d000hg]

Surely that is admirable defending what is right regardless of Gender is the correct thing to do.

Indeed. But this is BP, I'm worried.

[darmstadt]

However:

Ms Gohil, 50, from north London, accepted a car as well as £270,000 as a settlement when she divorced her husband Bhadresh in 2002.
In 2010, Mr Gohil was convicted of money laundering and jailed for 10 years.
At his criminal trial, evidence revealed he had failed to disclose his true wealth during divorce proceedings.

So possibly his wealth was actually through ill gotten gains and illegal so if she is to get a part of that then surely she is then complicit and should share his prison sentence as well?

[NibblyPig]

For longer marriages the contribution is not measured in simple financial terms, but also takes into account mutual support, running the household, child care etc. It would be, in my view, morally wrong to not take these things into account. Part of marriage is giving up your singleness and all that entails for and to the other person - that must be quantified. You can't go back to the state you were in before the marriage, because you did get married - nobody forced you.

The only problem with this is that it only takes into account money. You get married, she decides to spend her husbands income on holidays abroad, studying, having dinners out etc. while he does 12 hour shifts 5 nights a week

When they split up, she gets half of the money. But he doesn't get half of the holidays, half of the education, half of the time off, half of the fancy restaurants. She doesn't get half of his burden of working so having to work 6 hours a day 5 days a week for x years.

So I would say it is morally wrong not to take those things into account.

And since you can't directly do that, you should probably look into the circumstances of both people as individuals and how they behaved during that period, and compensate accordingly.

[NotAllThere]

Utterly appalling. After divorce it is reasonable that partners should get their share of what they contributed to the couple's wealth or otherwise be put back into the situation they would probably have been in had they not married.

This is more or less what happens. I know someone getting divorced after a short marriage. He has a property portfolio worth ~£2M. They bought a house together. She put in £200K, he put in £300K for the deposit. The divorce settlement is that she gets 40% of the increase (or loses 40% of the decrease) of the proceeds from the sale of the house. His other assets are entirely untouched. This seems perfectly fair and reasonable.

For longer marriages the contribution is not measured in simple financial terms, but also takes into account mutual support, running the household, child care etc. It would be, in my view, morally wrong to not take these things into account. Part of marriage is giving up your singleness and all that entails for and to the other person - that must be quantified. You can't go back to the state you were in before the marriage, because you did get married - nobody forced you.

In any case, the law has to deal with how things are now - not as xoggoth would like the law to be. So it seems reasonable that if a settlement was based upon an untruthful statement of assets,
then the case should have to be reheard.

[vetran]

BP defending womens' rights to more money!

Surely that is admirable defending what is right regardless of Gender is the correct thing to do.

[d000hg]

People lie to courts then get found out and punished.

Is this news?

BP defending womens' rights to more money!

[xoggoth]

Utterly appalling. After divorce it is reasonable that partners should get their share of what they contributed to the couple's wealth or otherwise be put back into the situation they would probably have been in had they not married. Anything more is wrong in principal.

The law is an idiot. These women are scumbags.

[BrilloPad]

People lie to courts then get found out and punished.

Is this news?