Divorced 20 years ago?

[original PM]

hang on a sec they were divorced before he started his eco company.

therefor her support for him during the time he was making the money was zero.

the child is now over 18

so for me she has no legs to stand on

she did not help him make the money, she did not stand buy him and keep house while he was making the money....

this is truly nuts

[fullyautomatix]

He should put in a claim for 20 years of back-sh@gs

looking at the grid on her, that would be about two

Question is, would Mitch ??

[original PM]

Question is, would Mitch ??

Only if he has gone blind since he last posted on here...

[sal]

I guess the argument is that she never claimed child support from her ex, probably because up until recently he lived in a van and it wasn't worth while. Now that he is a millionaire, she decided it's worth while to claim for the child upbringing to 18, she is not claiming for ongoing support as far as i can tell.

And i agree that if she gets any back payments, she needs to payback the benefits she received over the years.

[Jubber]

WSES +1

What about her second husband as well? Is she asking him for money? If she wins I think it could set a horrible precedent and I'm going to change my name

To Paul McCartney ?

[BrilloPad]

Paging BP!

I am now worth nothing so no worries there.

Its an attempt by the family courts to control and manipulate everyones lives. He only became rich after the divorce. And the child is 18 - not that its really relevant as she should go for child maintenance for the child not spousal maintenance.

Recently there was a case in Spain where are father had to support his daughter until she got a job. She is 31!

Another reason this country is going to the dogs. Too many lawyers.

"First let us kill all the lawyers" - Shakespeare's Henry 5th part 2

[BrilloPad]

they really need to draw up a legally backed decision tree and flow chart to decide what and how much 99% of divorcees get.

Such documents would answer most issues quickly and hopefully fairly without recourse to law.

There is!

Divide your money in 2. Give half to the lawyers.

[GlenW]

There is!

Divide your money in 2. Give half to the lawyers.

... and the other half to your ex?

[FatLazyContractor]

... and the other half to your ex?

Spend it on high class hookers

[vetran]

Marriage is viewed as a partnership so its presumed that the non-working spouse/spouse earning less did some of the non-earning work that kept the partnership going e.g. housework, gardening, diy and provided emotional support to help the greater earner earn his/her income.

Her claim must be without her input he wouldn't have made his millions.

I'm sure this case was in the media when the high court chucked it out.

So if the basis for splitting the Wonga is she helped?

If the partnership didn't exist until after the money was made. The spouse married into money and got a significant improvement in life style why on divorce should they get anything? After I stay in a hotel I don't go back to my house and demand the hotel send over a maid to clean my room.

If the money is made well after their split why should the spouse get anything?


If the spouse remarried why should she get anything?