Is This Ex-Wife Of 23 Years, Entitled To Some Of Her Ex-Husbands Fortune?

anotheoldgit | 16:34 Wed 11th Mar 2015 | News

23 Answers

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2989511/Ex-wife-hippy-turned-wind-farm-tycoon-millionaire-split-wins-right-fight-2million-divorce-payout.html

What does amaze me however is how could she afford to take this case before the Supreme Court, would she be entitled to legal aid?

What's Hilary Been Up To Then Eh?

Should Former Police Chief David Duckenfield Be Stripped Of His Police Pension?

Answers

1 to 20 of 23

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

Dizmo

Nah.

jno

http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/News/Question1406242.html

DTCwordfan

This is a travesty of justice even to hear the case - she has no grounds on which to appeal as he made his millions well after their divorce. Tuff honey....

Gromit

Already under disscusion below.

pixie373

No. I don't think anybody should be entitled to money just for being married to someone. It should depend how many children under 18 they have and where they live. Adults can earn their own money.

DTCwordfan

As I understand it, there were no kids involved, pixie, from the Beeb news earlier.

Baldric

They Married and Divorced when they both had nothing.

He got off his backside and built up a successful Business, by himself.

She sees what he's done and chances her arm (legal aid?) to get a share of it, but it's not hers to have, she contributed nothing.
No she is not entitled as far as I am concerned!

DTCwordfan

aaah I see there is one son, a small stipend then annualised forward should suffice.

pixie373

The link says they had a child- but he is now 33

Baldric

Especially after 23 years ^^^^^^^^^^^

MargoTester

It says in the article that he has to pay her costs which are currently £200,000 and could be up to £1m. (If I'm reading it correctly)

Hypognosis

We're all going to drown in lawyer's saliva, after this ruling.

My gut reaction was "no way" but now learn there is a son which moderates my view, somewhat.

As long as the ruling is extremely specific, to the point of limiting copycat cases to a handful and the specifics are kept under wraps then I'm not fussed. Otherwise it just looks like something concocted purely so the (otherwise esteemable) legal profession can take their cut from every self-made entrepreneur out there, in similar fashion.

DTCwordfan

To be negotiated out of court, me thinks..........

jno

it sort of reads as if he didn't do a lot for her or the son apart from give them the occasional £200 and second-hand car.

The judges said "Clearly Mr Vince's current wealth does not on its own give her a claim. She seems to have considerable financial needs but whether she can establish they have in any way been generated by the marriage remains to be seen."

So this isn't about his millions, it's about whether he owes support starting way before that.

And it's not about whether she's entitled to anything. They haven't got to that stage yet. It's about whether she's entitled to go to court and ask for it.

If you'd read your own Mail links, I wouldn't have to do it for you.

Peter Pedant

No you shouldnt be amazed - if she wins then she will have to pay the legal aid back

The big thing is .... they didnt get a financial order
That is the clean cut where the judge says there is no returning to raking over the ashes. In fact it is said he ( rich boy to be ) opposed a financial order twenty years ago...

A final order is the the thing Judge judy refers to when she says
JJ didja get a final order settling everything after ya divorce ?
Grasping plaintiff (GP) yeah
JJ well get outta here.
GP uh ?
JJ ya know I cant go behind a final order
GP well yeah we were told that
JJ case dismissed !

Not very applicable to everyone because they all get financial orders

Peter Pedant