Divorse is expensive

I must admit I couldn't beleive this when I first heard it.

So women can now have

The kids
The house
Your bank account
Your pension
and now 1/3 you FUTURE earnings.

Can no one see this as stupid and over the top?

BBC News Item

Divorse is really expensive (for the man) these days.

No wonder people are staying single thsee days.

 

You've missed out a few important details which put a different light on it:

So, it was succesfully argued that she was responsible for some of his future earnings so I don't see a problem.

And then:

So, a specific case that doesn't relate to the vast majority of people. I've heard of some pretty outrageous divorce settlements, but this isn't one of them. Seems pretty fair to me.

Michael.

 

3 words...
pre nuptual agreement.

i'd not get married again without one - even though my divorce didn't cost me much (in the grand scheme of things).

cheers


julian

 

In Portugal you have to have a form of basic pre-nup by law before you get married. You have 3 choices:

1) what was his/hers before and what becomes his/hers after will always remain his/hers.
2) what was his/hers before will remain his/hers after. What becomes his/hers after will be equally owned by both.
3) after the wedding, everything owned by both sides before or after the wedding becomes joint ownership (which is divided in half in the event of a divorce).

It was so unimportant to me at the time I don't remember which of option 1) or 2) we chose, I think it was option 1.

Julian, I'm not sure how much legal validity pre-nups have in the UK. AFAIK, they are not binding.

Michael.

 

michael,
they are not legally binding unless you are not officially married (i.e. if you are living together or are common law then they ARE binding). however courts are aparently more inclined to use them as a basis of dividing up the spoils if they are prepared properly by a solicitor and signed by both parties. they are not bound to do so though.
cheers


julian

 

After listening to the replay of this judgement on Newsnight I get the feeling that this ruling is to allow the lady to accumulate capital for the express use of her and the childrem. I think that when she returns to court at the end of four years and she has not saved to accumulate capital for the family the court will not look favourable on her request for any further attachment of earnings.

Auric

 

3 words...

Don't f**king bother!

It's probably cheaper and easier to pay for a whore every time you need sex; you never get it once you're married anyway, so £40 a pop once a month sounds like a bargain compared to having some paint and decor-crazy psycho bitch running around your domain!

That's unless you want kids of course, in which case, a nice padded, white room would be the best place for you (just kidding - kids are OK, but I couldn't eat a whole one - though at least any kid small enough to fit into the microwave can't run away first - arf arf!)

Seriously though, have you guys seen Intolerable Cruelty? Lots of cool pre-nup refs in there, and a corkin' film to boot!

 

And a rather tasty Miss Zeta Jones as well .

 

one a month..? blimey...

 

Dom - you have major female/relationship issues .

About the kids thing, you were a kid once remember

Michael.

 

From experience Dom?

 

Seriously though, Dom, this is a seriously sad post, with respect to what it says about you. You appear to have SOOOOOO much to learn about relationships and you don't appear to be getting anywhere. Of course, if you think marriage is all about sex, then you're right, don't bother, because it isn't. It's about building a lasting relationship with another person, about giving and taking with that other person. We joke about hi-fi and WAF, but that's a part of it, compromising where compromise is required. Some wives don't mind, others do. My wife doesn't like speaker boxes at all (but realises we have to have them, otherwise no noise), but is apparently completely indifferent as to the nature of the boxes attached thereto. I could bring in a squillion francs worth of Naim and she wouldn't notice or care. We all have different compromises to make, and we all have to make them. It's the nature of the game. If you're totally selfish and self-centered and must have your own way all the time, again stay out.

Michael is probably right in that you probably also started off as a child. Children are among the most frustrating - and most rewarding - aspect of the whole business. They drive you to drink sometimes, but you look back and you realise that you wouldn't have had it any other way. I've watched my two grow from babies to little girls to splendid young womanhood. They have minds of their own, their tastes and yours clash, they tell you that "Bach is gagh!", they refuse to laugh at your jokes on principle and they sometimes seem to regard you as having the intelligence of the basalt plinths under the Keilidhs. But nurturing and encouraging these other, different people is part of the territory and I know I'll blubber like a fool when they leave home permanently.

Sincerely, ol' spud, if those attitudes expressed above are genuine and not part of an assumed on-line persona, I think you ought to be thinking about getting some counselling for it.

 

I can see that most opinion seems to be siding with this verdict being acceptable, well ok I sort of expected that, personally I think it sets a worrying president, I think these divorse claims are getting more and more greedy and of course, getting away with it.

My beef isn't with women (beleive it or not) its with equality, women wanted quality but now they have it, they want more and our courts are bending over backwards to give it to them.

Dom dude, calm down man, Tones is right here marriage isn't just about sex, but its also not just about kids either, its about being with someone who loves and knows you like no other and you want to be together for life, but I think that sentiment is lost on today's people who just see it as either a fashion statement or a way to "marry into money". Oh and no Dom sex still continues once your married (just less often )

"3 words...pre nuptual agreement." Got that straight Julian, sorry to hear you had to go through it, but I think there should be a stronger legal document like Portugal have, I also think the whole marriage process should be overhauled to try and prevent "quicky" marriages which end in divorse.

 

Actually I do think it is relevant to everybody else. Despite the reassurances from people involved in the case, the simple fact is that UK law is precedent based, and this ruling sets a new precedent for divorce law. There is now nothing stopping it being used in other cases. Assuming it is deemed suitable of course.

My problem with this whole issue is this

When a relationship is over, what moral right does either party have to make any claim over the other party in any respect? IMHO absolutely none whatsoever. Sure marriages are a partnership, but only for as long as they last. Once they are over, they are over. IMO, nobody has any moral right to claim earnings from the other. The UK is now has economic equality. If a woman chooses not to work and live off her husbands earnings, that is her individual choice, (and vice versa of course). If that means at the end of the relationship, they can only go out and get relatively poorly paid job, then that is something they should have considered when they made their original decision IMO. That doesn't give them the right to act like a leech and expect their ex-partner to continue to provide for them.

The UKs divorce laws are sexist. Sexist because they still see the woman as the weaker, indefensible sex which requires a man to support. In this day and age of women being in full control of their financial destiny (at least as much as any man anyway), it is preposterous to have laws which still insist on punishing the man for entering in to a relationship with someone. This ruling would NEVER have happened if the genders were reversed because men are expected to be fully independant and just get on with it in life. It is only possible given the continued sexist attitudes that the law has towards women being unable to look after themselves.


GTM

 

corr, I couldn't agree more, GTM, what moral right does she have to actually have 1/3 of his wages.
Surely the sensible and right thing is simply provide MAINTENANCE, to maintain=to keep in good order, for the kids, that is what it is for.
Not a fortune, a life of luxury. 2 houses, a lump sum, and future earnings. They are now independant. Perhaps 1/2 of the tied up assets, yes, but future earnings as well.
Its bizarre, and I don't care what they say, it is money grabbing theft. Nothing more.
Work out what kids cost to bring up per year, treble it, maybe add a little on, for good will.
If she hasn't a job, why can't she get one? Everyone else has too.
The bonds are severed, as is the income.

 

GTM is dead right.
Precedence has now been set and in my opinion it leans to a hardening in law that will end up taking no notice of any prenuptial agreements, not that they have to take any notice of them now anyway.

Bob

 

Women ....
Hell with them and Hell without them

 

This Woman is very greedy to be sure, but how did she argue that she helped him in his career. What is stopping him now going to say USA where they pay good money even for football or europe, as i think i am right boris becker does not pay his ex anything.

 

Don't worry Tones - I don't mean it LITERALLY I'm not keen on kids - that much I'll admit - but *reasonably* brought up kids are fine - for every hellish one there's easily 2 good ones Probably more - it's just I get wound up by the constant rash of everyone falling over themselves to overpopulate the planet, and then not looking after their offspring properly.

As for relationships - only had one and it wasn't THAT bad; I just don't think the marriage thing's for me. I will admit I don't trust women any further than I can throw them, but that's down to my early years (fostering etc) and counselling won't change that, I don't think. I do have some female people I *do* trust and so I know it's possible.

BTW - I'd NEVER put a kid in a microwave! I might be strange but I'm not a psychotic paedo-cooker!

The whores thing was a partial joke/swipe at my ex; I had to pay for everything AND didn't get much in return (and NONE of what a whore would give you for cash!) so that's really put me off. Never say never though right?

Back on topic - I have to be honest and say I don't see why this woman's entitled to a THIRD of her ex's earnings either; he's done his "time" with her, and her blatant gold digging is obvious to anyone with more than one braincell. If I was the judge I'd not have sanctioned that - isn't what she's already blagged enough? Honeytrapping in this kind of blatant fashion should be illegal, but then again, we are talking about the LAW here, which is an ass!

 

Dom, I never imagined for a moment (well, maybe just one or two...) that you'd microwave a kid (I did come close sometimes, in their younger days - they now tell me that they're permamently traumatised as a result and that it's all my fault!). It's your underlying attitude to relationships, especially with the opposite sex, that consistently comes out in posts like these that worries me. I don't have any answers, but it seems that neither do you, and I really think you need to talk to someone about it. But only you can solve your problems. I wish you well at it.