ChatterBank1 min ago
Fair? Or Some Nerve.
Answers
It's a strange one isn't it. He founded the company and made his money after they divorced. Does that mean I can get money off my ex-wife if she wins the lottery next week, even though we divorced 20 years ago?
12:15 Wed 11th Mar 2015
From the article, I think that the claim hinges on two things.
While she may not have been in penury while he was getting rich, the basis for his wealth was laid while she raised his son in penury and even though its implied that the child is now 16, her current circs are not where she might have legitimately expected to be, given the support she provided, had the marriage continued.
The basis for my lottery comment is not that the parent caring for the child "could do with a bit more" or "could have done with a bit more" but that the original arrangement was insufficient, constrained by the maintenance paying parent's income and that therefore the parent caring for the child has had to receive support from other avenues, maybe statutory, maybe family or charity. Thus when the paying parent's income increases for any reason, the original imbalance should be corrected.
While she may not have been in penury while he was getting rich, the basis for his wealth was laid while she raised his son in penury and even though its implied that the child is now 16, her current circs are not where she might have legitimately expected to be, given the support she provided, had the marriage continued.
The basis for my lottery comment is not that the parent caring for the child "could do with a bit more" or "could have done with a bit more" but that the original arrangement was insufficient, constrained by the maintenance paying parent's income and that therefore the parent caring for the child has had to receive support from other avenues, maybe statutory, maybe family or charity. Thus when the paying parent's income increases for any reason, the original imbalance should be corrected.
The Lords Justices in the Supreme Court are probably better placed to interpret the law than any of us here. They have made their decision based on the existing law and it will set a precedent for any future cases where similar issues are raised.
Having said that and looking at the matter from a layman’s point of view, had the couple not separated of course the wife would have shared in her husband’s success. I think the issue that has been determined by their Lordships is to what degree the wife contributed to the husband’s success even though the fruits of that success were not evident until after they had split. They had to decide whether she was contributory to that success and to what degree (hence their comment that the amount claimed was probably excessive).
Many court decisions often seem a bit hard to understand when the details are condensed to a headline and a few short paragraphs. This case was probably heard over a number days and no doubt much of the detail which directed the Lords to their decision has not been reported.
For Mr Vince’s part he seems to be suffering the delusion that many men adopt when “moving on”:
"I feel that we all have a right to move on, and not be looking over our shoulders. This could signal open season for people who had brief relationships a quarter of a century ago ... it's mad in my opinion."
Firstly, of course, they did not have a “brief relationship”. They were married for eleven years and had a child. But secondly there seems little doubt that his wife endured considerable hardship when bringing up their son almost single handedly but Mr Vince seems to believe he has the right to “move on” (having contributed very little to his son’s upbringing) and can now spend his money without worrying too much about that hardship. Ms Wyatt clearly did not have such an opportunity to "move on" when they split as she had the responsibility for care of their son.
I think the decision was the right one. Ms Wyatt and their son would have enjoyed a far more comfortable life in recent years had they not parted and the contribution she made to the child’s upbringing should be recognised.
Having said that and looking at the matter from a layman’s point of view, had the couple not separated of course the wife would have shared in her husband’s success. I think the issue that has been determined by their Lordships is to what degree the wife contributed to the husband’s success even though the fruits of that success were not evident until after they had split. They had to decide whether she was contributory to that success and to what degree (hence their comment that the amount claimed was probably excessive).
Many court decisions often seem a bit hard to understand when the details are condensed to a headline and a few short paragraphs. This case was probably heard over a number days and no doubt much of the detail which directed the Lords to their decision has not been reported.
For Mr Vince’s part he seems to be suffering the delusion that many men adopt when “moving on”:
"I feel that we all have a right to move on, and not be looking over our shoulders. This could signal open season for people who had brief relationships a quarter of a century ago ... it's mad in my opinion."
Firstly, of course, they did not have a “brief relationship”. They were married for eleven years and had a child. But secondly there seems little doubt that his wife endured considerable hardship when bringing up their son almost single handedly but Mr Vince seems to believe he has the right to “move on” (having contributed very little to his son’s upbringing) and can now spend his money without worrying too much about that hardship. Ms Wyatt clearly did not have such an opportunity to "move on" when they split as she had the responsibility for care of their son.
I think the decision was the right one. Ms Wyatt and their son would have enjoyed a far more comfortable life in recent years had they not parted and the contribution she made to the child’s upbringing should be recognised.
Oh, and retro, "16 years child maintenance at say £50 a week.."
£50 a week is not the benefit she would have enjoyed had they remained married. Most parents will agree, I'm sure, that £50 is a derisory sum with which to give a child a decent upbringing. The amount it would cost a father to raise a child taking everything into account far exceeds that sum. But that's the most that many lone mothers get from their partners If they get anything at all).
£50 a week is not the benefit she would have enjoyed had they remained married. Most parents will agree, I'm sure, that £50 is a derisory sum with which to give a child a decent upbringing. The amount it would cost a father to raise a child taking everything into account far exceeds that sum. But that's the most that many lone mothers get from their partners If they get anything at all).
A couple of years ago, a childless solicitor won a share of her ex-hubby's pension. I vaguely remember they'd been split up for 25 years.
But, anyway, suppose a common man, like myself, struggled to pay £50 a wk, which is a lot of money to some of us, to someone who had a much better life.
20 years after the kids have grown up, hurrah, you win the lottery. Grasping ex-missus comes along, 'where's my half?' As I said, it's a can of worms, imo.
But, anyway, suppose a common man, like myself, struggled to pay £50 a wk, which is a lot of money to some of us, to someone who had a much better life.
20 years after the kids have grown up, hurrah, you win the lottery. Grasping ex-missus comes along, 'where's my half?' As I said, it's a can of worms, imo.
sunny-dave, even if there was no child, if she provided significant support during the time when he was developing his money making idea then I think in the eyes of the law she is entitled to a cut of the result. So for instance, she might have taken paid employment to support them both while he worked on the project, taken all or most domestic responsibility off him and so on. Basically its the "couldn't have done it without her or equivalent support for which he would have paid" argument.
I don’t know if the law has changed but I remember a friend being advised to claim 5p per annum from her ex-husband rather than waive all claim to maintenance payments. That left her free to make further financial claims on him at any time in the future.
I think the TV news reported that this couple hadn’t been married for very long – just a couple of years.
I think the TV news reported that this couple hadn’t been married for very long – just a couple of years.
Latest Posts
One World Built On A Firm Foundation
Music9 mins ago
News11 mins ago
ChatterBank27 mins ago
If There Was Any Doubt Of Labour's Anti...
News31 mins ago
