Seems reasonable - the great British legal system

davesnothere

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/exhusband-told-to-support-wife-for-life-after-she-blew-230k-payout-on-homes-a3459331.html

Crazyjenkins01

oh...dear...

capt_slog

No wonder she's smiling. This is a disgrace.

surrey_commuter

Losing money over the last 15 years investing in the London Property market is quite an achievement. She should sell her story.

mamba80

yes but no article on the 1000s of, mainly men, who scheme their way out of paying a cent for their childrens up keep, leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill.

as i read it, she is getting a £300 extra per month, he can afford it, he is paying himself 200k per year, the earlier settlement seems a bit one sided given his income and assets, he was allowed to keep all of his business interests - though i am curious, given that legal aid isnt available, is it? how she managed to take this to court?

rjsterry

mamba80 wrote:

yes but no article on the 1000s of, mainly men, who scheme their way out of paying a cent for their childrens up keep, leaving the tax payer to pick up the bill.

as i read it, she is getting a £300 extra per month, he can afford it, he is paying himself 200k per year, the earlier settlement seems a bit one sided given his income and assets, he was allowed to keep all of his business interests - though i am curious, given that legal aid isnt available, is it? how she managed to take this to court?

Quite agree. Seems to be a bit of a non-story and as you suggest, ignores a related and much more important issue.

Crazyjenkins01

Yes, there are a lot of guys who don't take responsibility, but given the article mentions a six figure liquid asset amount she was 'given' that should have been enough for a long long time. Unless of course you use it to try and live beyond your means and lose it all.

davesnothere

100% agree, all fathers should maintain responsibility for their children. I'm divorced myself and i pay my maintenance money on the button every month. I choose to pay approx 40% more than the CSA would make me pay based on salary/circumstances. Rest assured though as soon as my children leave home I won't pay another penny to their mother, why should I?

What I don't understand is why he should continue to pay her for the rest of her life? Surely when the son is 18 he can help him as any dad would with university, buying a car, buying a flat etc. in the normal way

Doesn't seem right to me that he should have to carry on paying after this point

DeVlaeminck

6 figures doesn't go very far if you have to pay for somewhere to live. We may not have all the relevant information here, I'm guessing that the court found the original settlement was a bit one sided. I don't think you should have a responsibility to support your spouse for life irrespective but there should be a fair split of the assets when you divorce.

slowbike

those 6 figures back in 2002 went a lot further ...

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck wrote:

6 figures doesn't go very far if you have to pay for somewhere to live. We may not have all the relevant information here, I'm guessing that the court found the original settlement was a bit one sided. I don't think you should have a responsibility to support your spouse for life irrespective but there should be a fair split of the assets when you divorce.

Well it is a report in the Standard, so that may be a possibility. I very much doubt a judge is daft enough to order another £300 per month purely on the basis that she bought a flat she couldn't afford.

Crazyjenkins01

I doubt the judge would be as well, but for life of the ex-wife seems excessive.
Plus she didn't HAVE to buy somewhere to live, there is this thing called a mortgage some of us have.

bendertherobot

There'll be something more than reported, possibly even a variation clause in the original consent order. The headline is very misleading, this is about an increase in an existing monthly payment. And not a very large one. It reads unfair but the judgment will probably take care of that. It is possible to vary an existing order. The only question is whether it should be. This is the Appeal Court, they'll have thought of that.

kingstongraham

Crazyjenkins01 wrote:

I doubt the judge would be as well, but for life of the ex-wife seems excessive.
Plus she didn't HAVE to buy somewhere to live, there is this thing called a mortgage some of us have.

I'm assuming that was where the problems came from. If you treat £230,000 as a deposit, that gets you quite a lot of mortgage if you are buying pre 2008.

Crazyjenkins01

KingstonGraham wrote:

Crazyjenkins01 wrote:

I doubt the judge would be as well, but for life of the ex-wife seems excessive.
Plus she didn't HAVE to buy somewhere to live, there is this thing called a mortgage some of us have.

I'm assuming that was where the problems came from. If you treat £230,000 as a deposit, that gets you quite a lot of mortgage if you are buying pre 2008.

Yeah maybe. but then why would you NEED to do that after a divorce?
Should have bought a smaller house in a less expensive area with a smaller deposit/mortgage.

kingstongraham

Clearly.

pblakeney

Crazyjenkins01 wrote:

Yeah maybe. but then why would you NEED to do that after a divorce?
Should have bought a smaller house in a less expensive area with a smaller deposit/mortgage.

Could have. Should have.
Didn't.