MumsnetGuestBlogs (MNHQ) Fri 13-Dec-13 12:11:31

The lessons of the Michelle Young divorce case

Michelle Young spent seven years chasing her 'tycoon' ex-husband through the courts, in pursuit of what she considered to be a fair division of the family assets. After finally winning £20m, she has called for a change in the law "to protect women like me with children by men who conveniently find they suddenly have no assets when they want to go off with a younger woman."

In this guest post, Michelle Young's lawyer Catherine Thomas says there are lessons in the case for women living in more humble circumstances.

Read the blog, and tell us what you think on the thread below.

Catherine Thomas

Senior divorce lawyer, Vardags

Posted on: Fri 13-Dec-13 12:11:31


Lead photo

Michelle Young won a 20m settlement from her ex-husband, who initially claimed he had lost his fortune

Michelle Young's divorce from her husband Scot Young attracted media attention around the world, because the sums involved were so extraordinary.

But despite the unusual and substantial nature of the case, there are lessons which can be learned by all women dealing with divorce - a difficult process, no matter how much money is involved.

The numbers involved in Michelle’s case reflect the magnitude and complexity of the case: it lasted seven years, included 65 separate court hearings, involved hundreds of thousands of documents and culminated in a four week trial at which 24 witnesses gave evidence.  Even the experienced and specialised High Court Judge based in London, the so called 'divorce capital of the world', called it "as complicated a case as has been dealt with before in these courts."

Her husband - described widely as a property tycoon and a 'fixer' for the wealthy - claimed that around the time the marriage was ending his multimillion-pound empire imploded, leaving him in debt to the tune of £28m, and declared bankrupt as a result of action by HMRC. 

Michelle was unconvinced and, using information pulled from the hard drives of laptops her husband gave their two children, she began to draw together evidence to support her case that he in fact retained many millions of pounds stashed away.

The more you know about your family's finances, the stronger position you will be in if you separate. Whilst it might be tempting for one person to manage the household singlehanded and for the other to manage the money alone, if the relationship fails the homemaker can be left, in the short term at least, facing even more uncertainty and instability.

The documents she found provided support for applications for search and seizure orders at homes and offices which further built her case.  When the husband failed properly to engage in the case, we obtained an order seizing his passport, and pursued an application which led to him serving three months in prison - a power which is rarely used in the family courts.

After a painstaking review of the evidence, which included Sir Philip Green and Richard Caring in the witness box, the judge concluded that the husband was not £28 million in debt as he had claimed, but rather that he had assets of £45 million and debts of just £5 million.  A 17-year marriage and two children entitled Michelle to half the net assets - £20 million.

Usually the family courts order that each side has to bear their own legal costs, but such was the unique nature of the case, the court ordered the husband to pay an additional £5m to Michelle for her costs, thought to be the largest costs order ever made by a family court in this country.

The case was undoubtedly extraordinary; but it doesn't matter how many zeros are involved, the lessons are the same:

Always get quality legal advice early on.  You don't need to incur huge legal bills, but you do need to know from the start what your rights are so you can make informed decisions.  However painful the separation, it will be all the more difficult if you are operating in a fog of confusion while trying to decide what to do next.

Despite the fear of many divorcing wives, the family courts will look beyond the case put forward by their businessman husbands in order to try and get to the bottom of the finances.  In fact, England is sought out as a forum for their divorce by some women because of its generosity to non-working wives when compared to most other jurisdictions.

Taking a case to a final hearing where a judge makes a decision for you can be expensive so talk to your solicitor about alternatives to court such a meditation, arbitration and collaborative law.

The more you know about your family's finances, the stronger position you will be in if you separate.  Whilst it might be tempting for one person to manage the household singlehanded and for the other to manage the money alone, if the relationship fails the homemaker can be left, in the short term at least, facing even more uncertainty and instability than if they understood how the money worked. 

When it comes to divorce, knowledge really is power.

By Catherine Thomas

Twitter: @Vardags

jonicomelately Fri 13-Dec-13 14:48:05

I don't know Mumsnet have agreed to this blog. Frankly the sums of money involved are obscene and for those people who are experiencing financial hardship it may be impossible to 'ignore the zeros.'
The whole thing is pretty bland and trite. When getting divorced get quality legal advice and knowledge is power. No shit Sherlock. The whole thing is a pretty self-serving exercise for the solicitor, but considering what a messy and long-drawn out affair it was, I'm not sure what she has to be pleased about confused

EvilRingahBitch Fri 13-Dec-13 16:29:10

Good for Michelle.

But can you please tell us whether HMRC and the other creditors who lost out as the result of this scumbag's fraudulent bankruptcy will also get the money they're owed? A bit off topic I know, but I'm curious.

Charcoalbriquettes Fri 13-Dec-13 17:28:05

How exactly do you avoid incurring huge legal bills?

3littlefrogs Fri 13-Dec-13 17:50:25

Being able to access and afford legal advice is power.

scottishmummy Fri 13-Dec-13 18:36:08

This reads like an advertorial, As legal advice i find the sloganising really cringey and a bit Oprah

It's difficult to overlook the zeros given that was the premise of the ex-wife contention. That her ex was affluent and concealing his assets,which was subsequently proven

Final hearing is expensive,and that's a gamble Ms young could afford to take. As Ms Thomas says It's an expensive option

scottishmummy Fri 13-Dec-13 18:43:17

This reads like an advertorial, As legal advice I find this a bit sloganising, bit too much Oprah

It is hard to overlook the zeros,given that was the basis of the ex-wife contention,that her ex-husband was concealing his monies. I think this is pr that will appeal to disaffected ex-wives of affluent men

As Ms Thomas correctly assets final hearing is costly,and really limited to those who can afford

scottishmummy Fri 13-Dec-13 18:52:23

This is simply a big advertorial fir a magic circle firm. It's not exactly searing or revealing advice, I fear mn you've run a big advert for a private firm

when it comes to divorce,knowledge really is power Gosh who'd have thunk it mnhq

scottishmummy Fri 13-Dec-13 18:55:28

Apologies,two post.I didn't think first had submitted,so I reposted
However I see both posts now present

Juliet123456 Fri 13-Dec-13 19:41:40

The lessons are important.
1. Never be a MY. Don't give up your career and stay ath ome. Instead build up your onw £45m of assets whilst Mr Young is at home washing your socks.

2. Own 50% of the shatres in all his companies. Be on all the boards. Have total disclosure from day 1 of the marriage. Look at each other's tax returns. Go to the meetings with accountants. Do tax, not your nails.

3. Remember so far MY I think has not got a single penny - so this case could instead be headed total failure unless and until Mr Young produces any money.

I think it's a really important case for women. Too often on musmnet you see threads where women don't even know what their husband earns, don't know what a P60 is, have never seen his tax return, have no clue about pensions and have lots of secrecy on his side as to what he makes and what assets, shares and other capital he has.

wonderstuff Fri 13-Dec-13 20:22:05

I think the key thing is to know where the money is. Women on this forum often have no involvement and don't even feel they have any claim to their husbands assets. We all hope that marriage will last, but there is more than an outside chance it won't, knowing your rights seems a sensible thing.

scottishmummy Fri 13-Dec-13 20:30:19

Both parties, Ms young and Mr young were subject to criticism by Mr Justice Moor summarising the bitter costly divorce. Her legal fees were £6.5million

Ms Young made claims against many (inc senior lawyers, Philip Green,simon cowell) that were unsubstantiated. justice Moor said he also found that Ms Young was also at fault, concluding: “She sees conspiracy everywhere.”

Later he added: “I have to be highly critical of the way in which the case has been conducted at various times by both parties. In many respects, this is about as bad an example of how not to litigate as any I have ever encountered". The judge also expressed astonishment that the case had cost Ms Young £6.5m – although he said her estranged husband should pay £5m of that figure as his failure to provide “full disclosure” had been the cause of the delays.

I genuinely cannot say this is a great victory for women as ms young asserts.i didn't feel a sisterhood glow reading it

joanofarchitrave Fri 13-Dec-13 21:53:02

Seven years. It sounds Biblical. Imagine spending seven years pursuing, or evading, a financial deal through the courts. How bitter and warped both their personalities must be by now, even if they weren't at the start. Better a dinner of herbs where love is than a stalled ox and hatred therewith.

Shades of Jarndyce for the Youngs

kerala Sat 14-Dec-13 00:10:10

Ooh I was thinking jarndyce too! Proves money doesn't buy happiness cliche etc

EvilRingahBitch Sat 14-Dec-13 01:01:48

But this bastard had gone to extreme lengths to conceal his assets from his ex wife. He'd also defrauded the UK government and his other creditors by going bankrupt. The judge, by making an extraordinary costs order, clearly felt that he deserved to be hauled through the courts.

Obviously her primary error was in marrying Mr Young and having his children, but once she'd done that, and he'd decided he wanted to defraud her - what was she meant to do? Say "oh I'll just let him keep the 20 million quid because it's too much bother?" Let's face it, unless you're Beyoncé, there aren't many other ways you can earn 20 million from7 years work. It's hardly a Jardynce situation, because for Mrs Y, the benefits massively outweighed the costs.

TaraKnowles Sat 14-Dec-13 01:19:28

Must be a very Bleak House to go back to.

She was right to pursue the money. She has his dds to look after, why should they suffer. Talk about a man punishing a woman and his own children for having the balls to leave him.

wonderstuff Sat 14-Dec-13 08:55:16

I don't think anyone could argue that she was wrong to pursue the money. But I wonder if married couples could do more to avoid getting to this point. I have shared assets with my husband, they don't amount to much but I know how much money he has and where it's kept, we budget jointly. I have read of women on here who feel it's ok for them to contribute 50% to everything even though they earn half as much as their husband and thus leave him with access to much more money. I wonder if giving financial advice to couples at the point of marriage would be wise. The law is pretty clear I believe, but lots of couples don't seem to be aware that when you marry the law sees assets accumulated during marriage as jointly owned.

Juliet123456 Sat 14-Dec-13 09:43:37

wonderstuff is right.

Also this case is a very rare one - it is not a husband disputing his wife's entitlement which is fairly common. It is a husband who refused to provide information at all. He was ordered to supply documents and refused. He was jailed and still refused. That is very rare. He says he has no money and I think still says so despite taking his pretty younger girl friend to some pretty expensive restaurants on a regular basis and yet has not been able to prove it or give documents to prove it. So a very unusual case.

Certainly the lessons are to keep up your own income and know each other's finances inside out.

Mignonette Sat 14-Dec-13 09:57:13

Her children are now grown so surely any monies for them would be back sums? She doesn't need money to maintain them unless she wants them to grow up like her?

scottishmummy Sat 14-Dec-13 11:15:56

Both parties emerged from this badly IMO
1.dont give up working,make sure you're solvent and not dependent on man
2.dont be passive about finances,yes do take an interest in what goes on

Essentially the enactment of stereotypical roles
He was male affluent provider,worked. He maintained overview and control finances
She was consumer,spender and didn't work. She did not maintain overview or control finances.

Juliet123456 Sat 14-Dec-13 11:52:22


As for the children I am not sure if Mrs Young has gone back to work full time to give them that good example, but they probably do need some funds to help them with university. It will be interesting to see if the forensic accountants/investigators have been able to trace the hidden money.

I thought he originally offered her a substantial sum which she turned down as she wantec a £20m property plus a lot of cash.

She could have had that money 7 years ago whereas as someone else said, she has not seen a penny yet of this£20m and racked up £5m legal costs.
He was prepared to go to prison rather than pay her. I cant imagine the feuding and bitterness their children have witnessed.

Mary2010xx Sat 14-Dec-13 20:17:42

Not really. He did make an offer but would not have paid it in my view. It as not really a proper offer. I cannot remember all the details.
He was also ordered at the start to pay maintenance for the children and that wasn't paid either. I think he just decided not to pay a penny of everything.
I'm watching Lucan (about Lord Lucan ) at the moment and it feels a little similar - a husband determined his divorcing wife will get nothing.

joanofarchitrave Sat 14-Dec-13 23:25:27

I think the children will have suffered more from watching this unedifying bunfight for SEVEN YEARS, including a period where their father went to prison in order to avoid supporting them, than from watching their mother walk away, get a job and earn her own money. Presumably she's had to anyway, or has she been living on air for all that time? What an utterly pyrrhic 'victory'. The only positive is that the children will have learned that you can watch two people behave despicably and evilly and still realise that in fact they are just imperfect human beings and they love them.

scottishmummy Sat 14-Dec-13 23:29:57

I'm genuinely bemused this is chosen as topic of mn blog.hardly edifying
Great to gave a solicitor on,let's see more of that.could do a clinic on FAQ
I hope lesson women take from this is don't give up work to be idle rich wife

'earn her own money'? I think she did earn a share of the money during the marriage. Scott Young would not have been able to go out to work and build up all that money if he had had to do the childcare and housework as well. Her work at home enabled him to focus on making shedloads of cash.

Any man who fails to support his children is despicable IMO and that includes S Young.

scottishmummy Sat 14-Dec-13 23:54:52

Err ms young has extensively alluded to their affluent life and staff as she put it
So the staff,the nanny,the cook et al facilitated mr young going to work

joanofarchitrave Sun 15-Dec-13 00:04:13

Oh I totally agree he has behaved despicably, and of course I agree that a parent staying at home is an equal contributing partner to the household income.

I suppose what I don't know is whether she would have been able to have some sort of life - i.e. a place to live, funds to restart her life/retrain as needed, resources for the children. I see no point in fighting beyond that, but perhaps he literally would have paid nothing at all and she had no choice.

But to spend years in his world, fighting on his terms, for what a man like that considers the only thing that matters - bleargh. What misery.

scottishmummy Sun 15-Dec-13 00:06:48

Awful that the daughters were caught in the melee.he should have supported the daughters adequately

Oblomov Sun 15-Dec-13 08:28:39

I too can't see the point. Or can't see that we have learnt anything in particular from her specific case.
They were very rich and he was very clever to hide it.
Can't believe he made the mistake of giving his girls his old laptop. Why didn't he just buy the girls a new one?
Will she actually get the money? The 20 million? 7 years. For 20 million.
Maybe she just caught up in the trying to prove a point , because she was in the right, and she knew he had fine wrong.
Is it worth it? We'll have to ask her.
I have got caught up in fights: DVLA for my licence back, my work where I won / my 2 grievances were upheld. But I still left with a pitiful amount.
And I've fought for 4 years, to get my son diagnosed , then to get him any help. Of which I have achieved nothing, got no support.
All if which has almost crushed me.
So I can't see that my fights were that fruitful. Even with her 20 million, I can't see that hers was either.

It's hard isn't it oblomov because I feel the same, is it worth it. On the other hand if she didn't fight he would walk away with everything and no responsibility towards his children too. Kind of gives the green light to all men of this sort to act like he has because xw won't think the fight is worth it. At least it shows that type of arsehole that he's not going to get away with it.

scottishmummy Sun 15-Dec-13 11:58:57

Legal blog great idea,I think it could be v interesting and well suited to mn
However this case,whilst it's coup for the representing firm isn't fantastic example Both parties emerged badly

Mary2010xx Sun 15-Dec-13 12:53:05

I think he n ot she has behaved badly. Now it may be some of us think divorce law giving those who haven't earned the money at lot of money is wrong but that does not mean every has to do a Nigella Lawson and not claim a penny from a richer spouse. It is not wrong to claim what the law allows you. It is wrong to be Mr Young and ignore court orders and not pay anything.

This is only part 1. I want to see if Mr Young pays and if the investigators have been able yet to trace where the money currently is and who is holding it for him. The court found he did have money despite his saying he does not.

Fimbo Sun 15-Dec-13 14:21:24

Scott Young and I grew up together as my parents were friends with parents. He came from nothing and left school with nothing, so where all this money has come from remains to this day this biggest mystery ever.

tiredandsadmum Sun 15-Dec-13 17:38:56

There are some dreadful comments on this thread. Those were marital assets built up during their marriage - of course she was entitled to some of them - they were HER assets too, How has she behaved badly? He has tried to cheat her out of them. I hope he gets sent to jail again and this time for a lot longer. Regarding her children and what they may have seen - their dad trying to cheat their mum. I hope they don't have much respect left for him.

wonderstuff Sun 15-Dec-13 17:43:23

Completely agree tired

HappyCliffmas Sun 15-Dec-13 18:34:11

One of the themes running through this thread is that of knowing what your spouse/partner earns. I would second that whole-heartedly. I am constantly amazed and dismayed at the number of threads on MN, where a poster has no idea of the state of the family finances. I cannot imagine not knowing how much my DH earns.

I hope MY receives the money awarded to her in settlement. However given her ex-husband's behaviour so far, I'd be surprised if that's the end of it.

Mary2010xx Sun 15-Dec-13 18:38:50

Happy, I agree. I also support MY's financial claims. She has had nothing. Her children haven't even been housed by their father. I don't particularly agree with spouses getting more than reasonable needs met rather than 50% of assets earned by the other spouse and way beyond their reasonable needs but MY has not had a thing yet. You might say more fool her and it will teach women a lesson never to give up full time work and earn their own money, but I would imagine most of us think she should receive something.

If Mr Young really had lost all his money he could easily prove that by producing all the documents the costs have requested. Instead he's just flouted the court orders.

Mary2010xx Sun 15-Dec-13 18:39:43
scottishmummy Sun 15-Dec-13 19:40:18

Thanks for posting that Mary, it's a v fair summation of complex case
Neither party emerges well IMO
Dreadful for the daughters to have lived with that disturbance

Mary2010xx Sun 15-Dec-13 19:45:45

I just read it actually. Fascinating. Interesting parts about what people buy and sell London property for, a lot of hints about unexplained property/assets which we will never get to the bottom of, fact judge found SY behaved so badly his wife will get indemnity costs but also the general comment that he gets £20m of £40m but will he pay later this month when due? As they are about to give him back his passport presumably he will then escape somewhere where no enforcement is possible, unless his wife has frozen assets of his which she can now seize.

They also say if she had wanted to claim additional properties she thinks others hold in trust for him she would need to have included those people in the proceedings.

Also something about his bankruptcy - presumably she can recover from him even though he is bankrupt? Or may be not.
I think it unlikely SY will now pay £20k plus costs and the late maintenance. He is getting his passport back. No more contempt of court orders will be made against him.
Having read that I suspect in effect he's won.

Moral never rely on men for money. Earn your own.

scottishmummy Sun 15-Dec-13 19:51:39

The judge commented on both behaved badly,the section relating to ms young is where judge elaborates on this. also,Extensive discussion of mr young evasive behaviours

Simon cowell not called to give evidence after all I see

It's eye watering in parts and certainly only representative of a v small group of wealthy folks

A salutary tale,don't become financially dependent upon a partner

Mary2010xx Sun 15-Dec-13 20:12:20

Indeed although having read the whole thing it is much more a case of MrY in the wrong, Mrs Y assuming he might be worth a lot more than he was (which is not surprising) and the fact she won indemnity costs means the judge clearly felt most fault lay on Mr Y's side.

Presumably the lawyers get none of their fees unless and until the money is recovered and kept away from his other creditors.

scottishmummy Sun 15-Dec-13 20:17:05

I'm not particularly warming to either of them
Dreadful for children to be embroiled in it though
Has he actually paid up?

Mary2010xx Sun 15-Dec-13 20:25:34

I think he hasn't paid anything except for that early period when he paid the rent. That is the only reason I feel sympathy for Mrs Y. He hasn't paid the interim maintenance he was due to pay and unless he has paid this month he has paid no lump sums either except that early £100k due back to her mother he paid just as they were divorcing.
He seems to live a pretty rich life with his girlfriend in the UK compared with his supposed zero income and being bankrupt.

tiredandsadmum Sun 15-Dec-13 20:27:41

No, this behaviour is not just very wealthy folks. Can you tell I am quite bitter? Took me 2 1/2 years to get my share of my assets. "Luckily" for me that although ex is a lying whatever he still wants to see DC so paid over some. The marriage failure may well have been both parties ( in fact is most likely) but the sorting out of the assets is usually quite one-sided.

babybarrister Sun 15-Dec-13 22:31:10

It is only a success if she actually sees some cashnwhich I doubt will happen. MY might otherwise find herself being bankrupted by her own lawyers ....

babybarrister Sun 15-Dec-13 22:32:03

Also MY had loads of different lawyers -Vardags were just the last ...,

dozeydoris Mon 16-Dec-13 06:55:26

I would like a psychological analysis of how and why the initial feelings of love turn to this bitterest of anger, hatred and revenge when some people divorce.

I guess it is largely the feelings of unfairness but gawd, it's all a bit extreme.

If the finances are offshore to avoid tax then there's not much chance of the spouse knowing what there is.

And if he's wanting rid of her just bung her the money FGS!

Mary2010xx Mon 16-Dec-13 07:56:11

If you are 100% involved in your other half's finances however then you make sure you are on the board of his companies, attend the meetings, have the minutes, set up the trust with or for him, know the trust's lawyers, are a beneficiary of the trust. This is what happens in equal marriages.

You are right that is what the judge is saying - you may well have loads more money hidden so pay the £20 million and it will all be over. I think Mrs Y might have sufficient details of where the assets are to recover them particularly those dodgy properties put into the name of his colleague. I suspect her lawyers would not have taken this on without being reasonably sure of recoveries but we shall see.

babybarrister Mon 16-Dec-13 08:23:28

I know the lawyers - th judgment suggests that the solicitors were mainly paid up front - it is Counsel that did the trial on a wing and a prayer - let's face it, it is a good case to be involved in .....!

RadioSilenceGirl Mon 16-Dec-13 09:35:53

Agree that it is important to know about joint finances, but how do you find out when all Hs assets are offshore??

Mary2010xx Mon 16-Dec-13 10:06:37

Ah, so if the new lawyers were paid up front there must be a litigation funder or a lender to the wife who stumped that up.

babybarrister Mon 16-Dec-13 10:15:25

judgment refers to various litigation funders ....I know some of them....

wonder if any of them will get paid or dear Scot will spend Xmas 2013 behind bars? I suspect that the figure of £20 mill is as asbestos proof as possible so that there will not be room for any argument when MY issues her judgment summons and SY tries to say he cannot rather than will not pay ....

must be coming up for paytime v soon!

babybarrister Mon 16-Dec-13 10:17:59

I wonder if MY will still be singing her lawyers' praises if she does not get any cash?

The moral of the story is just know where the money is be it £65 or £6.5m. But yes, too many threads here where one person does money and one does home.

Making me think too....

Mary2010xx Mon 16-Dec-13 10:59:19

There seem to be 3 or 4 properties listed in the judgment which the judge thought may well be being held for SY, the ones his friend holds. However the friend might dispute that. Then there were the shares £6m? or £12m? which he and the lawyer who was struck off said were being held by the lawyer and were used to obtain the large bank loan and then apparently either SY took the certificates from the lawyer or else they never existed. I suspect the latter although that means the lawyer lied when he undertook to hand them to the bank which the judge thought unlikely.

The bottom line will be will they recover any cash. They might have frozen some assets of his I suppose. It seems very unfair on the wife that her husband is to be handed back his passport before he is due to pay. Presumably he will just skip the country and never pay anything. The court is always giving him the means to avoid paying.

babybarrister Mon 16-Dec-13 11:08:08

I think that that was a major error giving the passport back as it is probably the only thing that would concentrate his mind .... still the lure of the Ivy etc may be too much for him!!!

Mary2010xx Mon 16-Dec-13 15:43:38

I think his fiance whom he wants to marry is American so they might well want to settle over there particularly as he used to live in Miami with his first family. I believe the court felt all these years, longer probably in any other cases, where he's not been free to travel really has been unreasonably long.

VivaLeBeaver Mon 16-Dec-13 15:49:35

Sadly I doubt she will see this money, hope she does.

I was put out by the reactions of male friends and relatives of mine. Every single one called her a greedy gold digger! After a long marriage and kids! They all said that she doesn't need that much money, isn't entitled to it, hasn't worked for it like her ex has.

I argued that as she'd been looki g after the kids she had enabled I'm to earn the money, etc but they weren't having it at all. This is from intelligent "new age" men who I'd have expected better of.

Did make me wonder if this is a sad sign of how men perceive womens' contribution to marital assets.

HappyCliffmas Mon 16-Dec-13 20:26:08

Yep I bet they all called her a greedy gold digger. Were they aware that they started life with nothing, living with her parents and that the assets were built up through the marriage? Or to put it another way, if you won the lottery tonight and then divorced them next week, would they expect to walk away empty handed? I doubt they'd be that magnanimous!

I've just read the judgment in the link provided above - it's 40+ pages so not a quick read, but very interesting. MY gets a bit of a pasting from the judge for getting tunnel vision. The amount she spent on forensic accountants and expert advice is truly frightening.

tiredandsadmum Tue 17-Dec-13 01:29:26

Viva - you are so spot on. It is sick how even normal men devalue the contribution that women make to the family.

Mary2010xx Tue 17-Dec-13 09:04:57

Well some of us women pay our husbands on divorce by the way so contribute to family financial assets by earning a lot more than the men! Let us not assume it is always the Mrs Youngs claiming money. Mr Youngs these days too and was in our case. I don't like feeling like a category not even recognised - women who pay to men on divorce as the women earn more. We are out there and in growing numbers.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now