Woman given right to claim against ex-husband after he became a multi-millionaire

[Aeka]

For those here in the states, this is about the same as being denied a summary judgment. Which means that she could still end up with nothing, and probably should.

[anveena]

She's just being able to make a claim for the money. Get back to me when the court actually awards her money.

[Deleted]

For a moment put yourself in her shoes and assume following scenario (it's completely made up by me now, but the article still doesn't rule this out). They fall in love and are together. She gives a birth to a child. Stops work and studying to take care of the child. After 2 years the guy changes his mind and leaves her. She raises the kid alone. He's not helping her at all, she's alone. She lost a chance to make a career or get good education. Her husband, free of the burden, takes his time to create a company (while kid is 13 and still needs parents to take care of him) and make money.

If they haven't been together or if they didn't have kid then she might get some education and make a career. If he hasn't left her or at least helped her with raising the child then again she might have the time to invest into herself. The fact she stayed with the kid and he did not might have contributed to the situation where manages to make a succesful company and she has to live on benefits. Plus, it was easy for him to find another wife. It's much harder for a lone mother without a work to find anyone.

I repeat again, I don't know if that's how it was, most likely not. But this story still fits what the article described. Does she really deserve nothing? Why is it always the mother that must pay the price when the man changes his mind? With the possibility of such scenario is it really that strange that court has allowed her to make a claim to at least see her arguments?

I am aware that for many people it's outrageous that she asks for anything so long after the divorce. But it's time people understood that having a relationship and children is not something light. It's a responsibility fot the life of other people. And whether you want it or not - your decisions will have impact on their life long after you divorce. Divorce isn't something that suddenly cuts all responsibility. If you marry someone then it should be for a whole life. Or at least understand it will have such implications. If you are not grown up enough to make such a decision / commitment then stay single and better forget about children

This is total bullshit btw. Given that the child is long grown into an adult it screams of "Gimmie gimmie gimmie" The fact that the claim was put in so late shows that this is just a blatant money grab.

Why was this not sorted when they split? because he had nothing? because she couldn't be bothered?

All this does is set a terrible precedent that you can still be "financially attacked" 20 YEARS after you divorced by a bitter ex.
They argue that she "raised her son through 16 years or real hardship" but we don't know the extent of his finances during that time. Green energy is pretty recent and i would guess that pre 2005+ that the company struggled.

Her claim is yet another example of court bias and is completely idiotic

[Deleted]

She's just being able to make a claim for the money. Get back to me when the court actually awards her money.

Laws can be changed. One day laws might decide that men, as a sex, have to pay reparations for the crimes of other individual men in the distant past.

[moremana]

what? support your kids until 27?

Thats insane!

[Deleted]

Laws can be changed. One day laws might decide that men, as a sex, have to pay reparations for the crimes of other individual men in the distant past.

That already happens... Reparations for slavery is just this thing (though not direct sex ect). Modern day "white folk" "paying" for something they did not even do.

[Forgettable]

"...the high court will now consider how much she should receive..."

A big fat zero and a slap on the hand for being suck a leech.

[khalltusk]

When they divorced it was reported they both had very little to no money so no financial settlements were made on either side (nothing to divide up). He continued to live in some sort of camper van and made his first wind farm equipment from recycled parts according to the articles i've read.

Her claiming for money is stupid, if he paid for child support and didn't miss any payments etc then this should be thrown out.

[Independent voter]

Okay, Sugar Ray Leonard was a boxer. When he was 14 an upper classman bullied him. The bully dodged twice, got overconfident and Sugar took him out with 3 left jabs. He went to the Olympics at 16 and won gold.

He wanted to go pro but he didn't want to wind up poor like other boxers. He found a businessman who set him up with his own corporation of which he became CEO. This also allowed him to put leeching relatives and friends on the payroll and he could deduct them from his taxes.

He got married young, had kids, he cheated on his wife a lot. She finally left him.

Later she sued. There were all kinds of lawyers involved. Years went by. Sugar set her down and said look, you're the mother of my children, let's get rid of the lawyers and tell me what I can do to make this right.

He wrote her a check with her promise that she would never ask for more.

[Spiffums]

What's next? Every girl you ever dipped your wick in gets to sue for money if you hit it rich?

[Deleted]

Okay, Sugar Ray Leonard was a boxer. When he was 14 an upper classman bullied him. The bully dodged twice, got overconfident and Sugar took him out with 3 left jabs. He went to the Olympics at 16 and won gold.

He wanted to go pro but he didn't want to wind up poor like other boxers. He found a businessman who set him up with his own corporation of which he became CEO. This also allowed him to put leeching relatives and friends on the payroll and he could deduct them from his taxes.

He got married young, had kids, he cheated on his wife a lot. She finally left him.

Later she sued. There were all kinds of lawyers involved. Years went by. Sugar set her down and said look, you're the mother of my children, let's get rid of the lawyers and tell me what I can do to make this right.

He wrote her a check with her promise that she would never ask for more.

That is not even remotely similar to this. SRL was ALREADY LOADED when this happened. This guy was skint and made his fortune AFTER they divorced.

[Deleted]

Uh-oh, MMO-C rallying the woman hating brigade again.

Not seen any woman hating here. Don't get why the mmo-C SJW always jump out to defend the idiotic things that women seem to be able to get away with at times

[kendro1200]

The way I look at these is what a tribal elder would've done back in prehistoric times. She would've said something like "I went without all those years sacrificing my best years for that bastard." He would've said something like "yeah, but we divorced, I don't owe her."

The elder would've decided, "She did sacrifice and you did divorce. I give you one tenth of what you would've received had you remained married."

What better years? Apparently she gave up a few years in her early twenties, had kids with more people before she even attempted to become formally divorced. After they separated the guy was literally homeless, living in an abandoned ambulance.


This woman is making a crash grab. This many years after everything, after their only kid is already grown up, long after the divorce, there is no good reason that she would need money for to help herself and their child along after the divorce. This is exactly the kind of behavior and unfair leniency given towards women in terms of divorce that makes a lot of men make the blanket claim, "Why risk marriage, all that happens is a divorce and you lose half of your stuff." If any person you married, no matter how short the marriage, could attack you in court decades after the marriage and all things taken care of, and make additional claims to take assets you generated AFTER the divorce, what incentive would there be to get married? This is a loophole in the laws that when it came up the judges should have made a ruling against to set the precedence of a time period. Instead they did the exact opposite and opened the door for anyone (although currently it's only set for women) to make legal action against people they've divorced decades ago, and take assets they've generated after the divorce. So old retired people could start taking other old people's retirement assets, given this precedence, that is scary and sick.

[Daws]

Hopefully gets thrown straight out of courts and the entire process slapped with an expiry date for making claims.

[Vermicious]

What kind of attorney (solicitor in UK I think?) would take on a case like this? Must be for free until any settlement...

I know UK laws are crazy: I knew a gay couple in UK. One of them passed away suddenly at 50 y/0 (heart attack). His ex-wife went after the house the gay couple had together claiming she still had rights to the deceased partners estate. Cruel heartless woman. She was quite well off on her own.

[Deleted]

What kind of attorney (solicitor in UK I think?) would take on a case like this? Must be for free until any settlement...

Plenty of money grabbing vulture solicitors over here

[Dys]

Uh-oh, MMO-C rallying the woman hating brigade again.

Incorrect. Unless you believe that every woman is a greedy twat and is being indirectly attacked by the comments in this thread.

Grasping at straws must be hard work.

[procne]

This is total bullshit btw. Given that the child is long grown into an adult it screams of "Gimmie gimmie gimmie" The fact that the claim was put in so late shows that this is just a blatant money grab.

Why was this not sorted when they split? because he had nothing? because she couldn't be bothered?

All this does is set a terrible precedent that you can still be "financially attacked" 20 YEARS after you divorced by a bitter ex.
They argue that she "raised her son through 16 years or real hardship" but we don't know the extent of his finances during that time. Green energy is pretty recent and i would guess that pre 2005+ that the company struggled.

Her claim is yet another example of court bias and is completely idiotic

Gah, I lost my post, so the short version. We don't know how their divorce looked like or their life after it. You said it yourself. We don't know. I can certainly think of few scenarios where should would, in my opinion, deserve some recompensation. In any case - people smarter than you and me decided there might be something more to it, and that she deserves to be heard.

[Vyxn]

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/...-up-dale-vince
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...shire-31832392

UK:

and people wonder why so many men are not looking to get married
it is bad enough you have government always digging for more in your wallet now you have ex wives doing the same

[wheresmywoft]

and people wonder why so many men are not looking to get married
it is bad enough you have government always digging for more in your wallet now you have ex wives doing the same

Stop trying to bring politics into this discussion.