Are an ex-husband's future earnings fair game?

[derbyram]

In light of the ex-Mrs Parlour's court victory today. Do AB'ers think that an ex-partner should have a claim on your future earnings - over and above the split of assets held at the time and any maintenance payments??

[Hippy]

The law made this afternoon says that the ex-wife (in this case the lower earner) is entitled to 50% of the excess of earnings over expenses of the ex-husband (in this case the higher earner). Their noble Lord Justices held that the future excessive earnings is an asset formed but not realised during the marriage as the (in this case) ex-wife was instrumental in creating the conditions for those excessive earnings.

I think that from now on the at the moment unenforcable "Pre-Nuptual" contracts will be viewed more seriously by judges in divorce cases, and a lot of high earners with shaky marriages will become very profligate spenders or as always was the case clever at salting secret funds away before starter's orders.

Best advice? Don't get married. Earn lots, be generous, but when the bonding goes bang both sides just have a bit of a tiff and walk away with no futute calls save maintenance of children up to age 18.

[Greedyfly]

If children are involved then yes - but no one has a right to live off someone else.

[derbyram]

Greedyfly, the award didn't include the child maintenance which had already been agreed at about �12500 per child, per annum

[becks]

They didn't "make a law" an although some are saying that the outcome will set precedent it will really only be relevant in cases where there are massively high earners. From what i heard on the beeb news this mroning, this is nothing new, it's called a clear cut or something where the wife gets a pay off in relation to the husband's earning, what's happened in this case is that she is being given the money in installments as such. plus it's not forever, ray parlour won't be playing for arsenal forever and it'll be changed in four years. we also don't know the ins and out of the case, my mum and dad are divorcing and if someone's had an affair you're autmatically entitled to more than the 50/50 share that usuallyhappens. i personally don't think it's fair to claim on his earnings, she's not turning up to play for the greatest team in the world (IMHO) every week, she doesn't have to have operations on her dodgy knee, she doesn't have to run around for 90 minutes being awesome. on the other hand she will have to raise their three kids but it does smack of money-grabbing to me and makes her look very bad.

[Hippy]

In this country there are broadly two sorts of Law. Statute Law is enacted by parliament and laid down in "Acts" that are then interpreted by the courts. Judge made Law arises from decisions made by Judges in (mainly) civil cases.

If, as Becks says, a precedent was set, then that is the basis of Judge made Law, and was why I said "The law made this afternoon" in my original comment. Note also that I mentioned that high earners with shaky marriages might take avoiding action, and by implication those without the "excessive earnings" that I mentioned will be unaffected by this new ruling.

Becks, I think I agree with you on the moral (non legal) view, but the question was not "is it fair?" but "Do [we] think that an ex-partner should have claim on ... earnings" and as such I wished to offer that the Law now says that they should, under certain circumstances.

[BenDToy]

There were some very special circumstances in this case. The wife apparently proved that she was a major part of his ability to command the salary he does. She was instrumental in helping him to overcome drink and/or drugs and motivational problems, and as such it was accepted that he would not have been in a position to earn what he does without her. It is a fairly unique situation.

[woofgang]

ooh ooh I feel pedantitis coming on unique is not a qualifiable adjective a thing is either unique or not!!

[norfolk boy]

If you have children and are not married you still have to pay for their upkeep, but you have as a father very little in the way of access rights,so my dear wife of the legal profession informs me.

[number8]

This was a downright disgraceful judgement - I am absolutely flabbergasted, and in my opinion is yet another nail in the coffin for the union of marriage. I see Jim Davidson's ex wife and Sadie Frost are now jumping on the bandwagon. Disgraceful. Personally, and on the assumption Ray Parlour does not actually have to work again, if I were in that position I'd stop working. Cutting off my nose to spite my face? possibly. But that would be the only way I'd feel any satisfaction.

[slimjim]

Disagree with the verdict but to put it into perspective: she got one third of his income. The Government has been doing this to me for 15 years!

[stevie21]

...the ex-wife was instrumental in creating the conditions for those excessive earnings If she was instrumental in creating these conditions, then wouldn't she have done that out of love rather than seeing her then husband as a financial asset? I don't see why she should be paid money for investing time in her marriage. Obviously the papers are being biased about it and straining to paint her as a gold-digger but even without their hysteria, I just don't see why she should have a claim on his earnings. If she could show that she lost 4 years of income because she gave up her job to look after the kids then pay her that equivalent.

[bazwillrun]

Shes just a greedy football wife with a good lawyer who put her up to it. Just look at what she was already getting from him