General Chat

Ann, of course every situation is different, and as I've said, whether it's a man or women, makes no difference, if your entitled to half of an amount, you should get half.

As for a prenup, if I thought I needed one to marry someone, I wouldn't marry them.

Lynda, most of my female work colleagues worked full time like their husbands and in a stressful environment as well as having children to look after. Is the wife who stays at home and doesn't have the pressure of targets to meet and annual performance reviews their equal?

Every situation is different I think and so should be judged differently. I wonder how much money these women would have amassed by their own efforts had their husbands stayed at home to care for the children? As the law stands it is wrong their husbands hid their assets, but if I was a man I wouldn't even consider marriage without a prenup.

You only have to look at the McCartney / Mills case to realise that the days of the wife walking away with half is a thing of the past.

Mills sought a settlement of £125 million but ended up with £24 million. This was a lump sum of £16.5 million is made up of £14 million as the capitalised figure for the her income needs, which the judge assessed at £600,000 p.a., and a sum of £2.5 million for the wife to buy a property in London. The remaining figure consisted of her assets she was allowed to keep.

She claimed that McCartney has assets of around £800 million, twice the amount he had claimed, but the judge disagreed. In any event it would have been unlikely to affect the final settlement which was awarded on the basis of what her needs were, rather than the amount of her ex's wealth.

Historical definition of a kept woman....

"Historically the term has denoted a "kept woman", who was maintained in a comfortable (or even lavish) lifestyle by a wealthy man so that she will be available for his sexual pleasure. Such a woman could move between the roles of a mistress and a courtesan depending on her situation and environment."

If that is the case of the woman in question, then I reckon she deserves all of the money, then he will have to find a woman to keep him, not that anyone would want him of course.

Probably, at the time seeing as how the stock market works(up one day, down the next)
the original settlement was likely, in order


but come on 3 properties +7 million+30 % of the sale of the business ain't bad bearing in mind for 17 years she was likely a "kept" woman, and........and not really needing to sell matches on street corners!!!

I reckon in this case........she is a gold grabber just MY opinion, Mind!

If a man or a woman works full time and their partner stays at home, looks after the children, house and all the other things life brings, then surely the couple have an equal partnership ?

If not, and they divorce, and the working partner doesnt want to share the money they see as "my money" then maybe the non working partner should invoice the working partner for all the times, they worked overtime by staying up all night when the children were Ill, the times when other half rang from the office to say would they just collect something for them, as they are "so busy" or all the times they just "had" to go out to dinner with a client, so non working partner had to cancel their plans for the night, then i reckon non working partner would probably end up with more. I could go on, but you get my drift.

Marriage is a partnership, if you don't want to share, don't get married, or have a prenup drafted.

The whole idea of "getting half" seems an unfair rule of thumb.
My wife has worked part time been the main carer for our kids and contributed to our
house and savings equally.

A wife who has spent her time designing the home how she wants it and spending money her husband has earned on clothes, jewelry, holidays and employing a nanny to bring up the kids, should not expect to carry on as before with half his money.

Can you blame someone who feels his wife is taking him for a ride for feeling less than eager to pay out. After all these women were not exactly thrown out on the street in their underwear!

;-) Dermot

Lynda ~ fair enough.

That's why we have The Supreme Court Dermot :-D

We all expect fair play but not everyone agrees what fair play is.

Why do you think he lied about his total wealth in the first place?

He knew that she was entitled to her full share when they divorced.

She's not greedy.
He IS!

A 'truthful liar' is an oxymoron - I think.

The amount doesn't matter at all.

If you deserve a proportion of an amount then you should get that amount, whether that be £4,000 or 40,000000, the amount is of no significance, you should receive the right proportion.

These ladies now go back to the High court to be reassessed, they could actually come out with a lesser amount.

These men were liars about what they had, they got found out, and good job they did.

I know of someone who was awarded 5p a YEAR, because her husband said he hadn't a bean, he did, I sat in the court and watched him lie, not pleasant.

Edit. By the way The Supreme Court doesn't have a guilty/not guilty verdict, It judges on points of law.

I think in this current case its just gold grabbing...........

What is a truthful liar?

What about truthful liars? And when is 'enough', enough? :-P

Excellent. Liars deserve all they get. Hope the women get costs against the lying ******** as well.

Agree, SuperC

Good for them :-D