Fair? Or Some Nerve.

[Svejk]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392

[ludwig]

It's a strange one isn't it. He founded the company and made his money after they divorced. Does that mean I can get money off my ex-wife if she wins the lottery next week, even though we divorced 20 years ago?

[ummmm]

It doesn't say how long they were married for or have I missed it?

They married in 84 and he started the business in 95 so he could have spent quite a fair amount of time during the marriage working on the idea while she bought up the son on benefits.

I'm a bit on the fence.

[Svejk]

Funnily enough, the lottery 'analogy' went through my mind. It's yet another can of worms, imo.

[ummmm]

//The judgment is also a timely reminder that divorcing couples who want protection from such claims, even if they have no money at all, should obtain an order from the court at the time of the divorce, in which they both agree that there will be no further financial claims.

That is the only way to guarantee that, if one of them goes on to make a fortune, they get to keep it.//

Don't forget to do that....just in case!

[trt]

Why should she be able to claim, it wasn't her idea or took part in his idea, typical women scorned!

[Gromit]

All that worry has had a terrible toll on his good looks.

Or that Eco Energy is bad for the complexion.

[chelle7272]

It's not a very clear article.

They did have a son, and if he hasn't contributed to his upkeep at all then perhaps there should be some payment for that, but on general principles seems a bit cheeky to me!

[Svejk]

I thought 'decree nisi' or divorce meant no comebacks. That's what Judge Judy says, anyway.

[atalanta]

I thought that both signatures on a document waiving all future financial claims ( apart from child support) were a prerequisite for the decree absolute.

[ummmm]

After the decree nisi you get an order of court.

[ummmm]

I don't know :-)

[youngmafbog]

All part of modern day Britain. Always try and get something for nothing; usually spurred on by some scum lawyer.

[woofgang]

The argument seems to be based on the fact that he worked on the foundation for the company, and his subsequent success, during their marriage and she contributed by enduring hardship and raising their child in that time, so its not like a lottery win.

Regarding the lottery win though, if a settlement figure for children and for raising them should have, in fairness, been higher but the spouse who should pay has no money then there is also an argument that if that spouse later comes into money by any means, then the inequality of settlement should be righted.

[Svejk]

How do you work that out? Child support is based on income. I'm sure every woman(or man) who's ex partner went on to win the lottery could/would claim they could have done with more.

[Zacs-Master]

She'e only won the right to claim. Everbody understands that.....right?

[Svejk]

If the highest court in the land says she has a claim, can you see a lower court giving her nowt?

[Zacs-Master]

Stranger things have happened in British courts.

[ummmm]

It's unlikely she'll get the amount requested though.

[Retrochic]

16 years child maintenance at say £50 a week £41,600 -not quite the £1 million + she felt she needed

[sunny-dave]

They seem to be saying "bung her a nice house, but not a mansion".

For me, it all hinges on the chronology of marriage/child/divorce, which is far from clear in the reports.

If she has struggled with to raise his child for years whilst he was becoming rich, then she deserves something.

If the child was an adult and the break was complete before he hit the jackpot, then I can't see why she has a claim.