How long before pre-nuptial agreements are legal?

[BrilloPad]

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/to...cle3075995.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/st...rc=rss&feed=11
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ivorcee120.xml


Mrs Crossley subsequently took the matter to the Appeal Court, which yesterday ruled against her. The ruling was seen as a significant boost to prospects of pre-nuptial agreements being formally recognised by the courts.

Lord Justice Thorpe, one of the country's most senior divorce judges, said: "If ever there is to be a paradigm case in which the courts will look to the pre-nuptial agreement as not simply one of the peripheral factors of the case but a factor of magnetic importance it seems to me that this is such a case."

[Sockpuppet]

I hope she is a whore in the sack becuase she doesnt have the looks and seems like a right bitch.

[Flubster]

I hope she is a whore in the sack becuase she doesnt have the looks and seems like a right bitch.

Your ideal women then Socky?

[BrilloPad]

I wrote this article for hicn - what do you think?

High Value divorces - are pre-nuptials going to be made legal?

(Divorce the HNWI Way - Part Three)
Part Two - http://life.hereisthecity.com/sound_off/386.cntns
Part One - http://life.hereisthecity.com/sound_off/112.cntns


The family courts yesterday moved a step closer to confirming the status of pre-nuptial agreements - and they appear to be giving them a higher rating. Susan Crossley yesterday lost her appeal - this means the assets of her divorce will be decided in February in a single day as opposed to an eighteen month full trial. This is supposedly to relieve pressure on the, already massive, family law system. Which sounds a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas. In fact there were four reasons for having a short trial - length of the marriage, the lack of children, the independent wealth of both parties and the pre-nuptial agreement.

The legal system can, in effect, set law by precedence. In fact in the case of the 1989 it reversed the original intention by a series of judgements. So the ruling in February will be closely watched.

At the moment pre-nuptial agreements are used mostly to set out the assets bought into the marriage. If assets were not declared in this then it will be interesting to see how these are divided - allowing for the length of the marriage and the lack of children. Of course wealth is not a consideration. It used to be that the needs were taken into account. Now a 50/50 split is the starting point unless you are talking Paul McCartney wealth.

So it is still not safe to get married even with a pre-nuptial. But watch this space. The family courts will not give up their international power base without a huge fight.

Of course the big winners are the lawyers. As ever.

[TimberWolf]

[interviewing Debbie McGee] What was it that first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?

--Mrs. Merton "The Mrs. Merton Show"

If there were more females on here a poll on what attracts you in man might be in order. I suspect arse and tits would not come top

[BrilloPad]

[interviewing Debbie McGee] What was it that first attracted you to millionaire Paul Daniels?

--Mrs. Merton "The Mrs. Merton Show"

If there were more females on here a poll on what attracts you in man might be in order. I suspect arse and tits would not come top

There are a few pretending to be females....

[KathyWoolfe]

There are a few pretending to be females....

Not so strange then that no females would pretend to be male.