Possibility of Divorce settlement 20 years on...

[NetworkGuy]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392

I can understand that Ms Wyatt was certainly entitled to some form of settlement, and from a radio report (and the web pages) life has been financially challenging for her, so I don't begrudge her wish for some remedy.

What I can see, from Mr Vince's point of view, is that this looks like a very late request, knowing he's worth an estimated 100+ Million.

I think he should have just handed over 2M (assuming he could afford to, without it needing him to sell his business or home, to raise the cash), but also see the point that he feels it is a request "20 years too late".

Now there's not a lot to show that he deliberately hid from her (indeed, if his business was thriving from the mid-90s, there has surely been plenty of opportunity to get some help).

What do others think ? Quite understand she brought up their son alone, and that was unlikely to be easy, but does seem like a long time after to be chasing for cash.

As a single (much older) man, it makes me think "would I even get involved for 5 years with someone" on the {extremely unlikely} possibility I start earning 1M a month from a dotcom idea I have...

[Wombat22]

I think it's outrageous. He made his money after they split. Their child is an adult. She is just grabby imo.

[NetworkGuy]

But he could have helped her+son all those years ago, and for whatever reason, it didn't happen - he should surely consider the son, too...

Seems harsh to have a massively rich father who is quibbling over ~2% of his fortune, just because the parents split years back...

[FelixCulpa]

What is the rationale for this? Is it meant to be back-dated child support?

That's the only way I can think this would be reasonable.

[Jux]

I think it's nonsensical.

Yes presumably he could have been generous at some point, but as long as he was paying child maintenance throughout then he is not bound to do more unless he wants to. Anyone know why he might not want to?

Was he another feckless dad who just buggered off?
Was she a scorned woman who wouldn't facilitate contact?

Personally, I would prefer to see the money given to the son - if any lump sum is awarded. I don't really see how it can be sensibly justified giving her anything this long after.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

FelixCulpa

If its back dated child support then surely it should go to the child?

[MissPenelopeLumawoo2]

He himself admits he was 'sporadic' with child support. He basically buggered off and left her to bring up his son. She struggled financially to do so. Once he made his money he did not approach her and say' here is all the money I should have paid you to support our son'. So I can see why she has made this claim, and any decent father would have seen to it that when his living standard massively increased, his child got a share of that too. He wasn't forthcoming with the cash so she has had to go to court to chase him.

[AuntieStella]

I don't think she's just been awarded anything yet, just given leave to apply to the court (there was no financial order at the time of the divorce). He had buttons before about 1997, but his son did not reach 18 until 2001 so there's definitely a gap there. No idea why it's taken 14 years to get payment from him for that period.

[NetworkGuy]

Agreed, AuntieStella - there's only the "allowed to go back to court" decision at this stage, and as he said, this ruling "opens the floodgates"...

One of his comment was a bit "flip" - "we all have a right to move on, and not be looking over our shoulders" - which seems like he wants to shrug his shoulders and say "so what" to what he seems to think are minor consequences of his "brief relationship" - a child... WTF!

Hardly minor consequences for Ms Wyatt - and no doubt hundreds of other women across the UK, Europe, etc, where a partner has left them to their own devices... bringing up one or more children.

[kickassangel]

I don't know the case but there's a pretty strong argument that a single person has significantly less opportunity to develop a career if raising a child. So he only got to make his millions because she did his parenting job for him. If he'd had the same income and paid a nanny, cleaner, cook etc to care for his child then 2m seems a reasonable amount over 20 years.

The attitude that he should just be able to move on is pretty disgusting. Do we just abandon our children at birth in order to move on and keep our money to ourselves? He was an adult who had consensual sex and became a parent. He was responsible for 50% of that child's upbringing. Why shouldn't he pay some money in lieu of caring for and loving his son?

[SwedishEdith]

Yes, the "brief relationship" comment was a little . Will be interesting to see what this is all really about.

[RufusTheReindeer]

My understanding is that the lack of a financial settlement following the divorce has left the way open for a claim

No idea if that's true or not

[emkana]

Why on earth should backdated child support go to the child? Did the child pay for his own housing/food/clothing/transport??

[CuttedUpPear]

Get this straight folks.

She didn't bring up his son alone.

He supported her financially and practically. She drives a car he gave her even though their son became an adult years ago.

[whattheseithakasmean]

He sounds a bit of a shit and she seems out for what she can get. Neither of them come out of this smelling of roses - but divorce does tend to bring out the worst in people.

According to the BBC legal expert, the lesson learned is to get a documented final settlement on divorce, even if you have nothing at that time. It is the lack of a final settlement that has enabled this to proceed - a legal technicality which gives no indication as to whether it will be successful.

[BobbyBanana]

kickassangel she didn't do his parenting for him. The son was jointly brought up by the two parents and Mr Vince's partner was very involved as well. The son had a bedroom at his father's as well as starting work with the company as a teenager when it was in its early days.

Ms Wyatt went on to become a single mother to 2 more children and has chosen very rarely to work even though they are now fully grown.
I am not a benefit basher, I receive benefits myself, but this is an example of someone who thinks that the world owes them a living.

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

I think it's a puzzling judgement. Perhaps Mr Vince would have been wise to share his good fortune with the mother of his child a bit more generously down the years, I can't say, but the whole thing sounds very odd and certainly sets a worrying precedent. I can see lawyers now recommending that the concept of spousal support is avoided at all costs and that 'clean break' with no come-backs is the preferred outcome.

[prh47bridge]

It is not a puzzling judgement at all. They did not reach a financial settlement when they split and she has not remarried. She is therefore entitled to claim. That is the law (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 S26). If he had taken legal advice at the time of the split he would have been told to get a final settlement. He clearly either didn't take legal advice or ignored it.

Note that the court said that she is unlikely to get anything like the £1.9M she requested and that she may still end up with nothing. This judgement has not awarded her anything other than a hearing.

The press seem to be treating this as a surprising judgement that somehow changes things. In reality the only surprise is that he thought it worth going to the Supreme Court in an attempt to have her claim dismissed. He never had any realistic chance of success.

[FelixCulpa]

Thanks Bridge

He said on the radio this morning that he has spent 500k on legal costs (both his and hers) so far.

Wasn't surprised to hear who the law firm for her was though

[henbane]

He said this morning that there had been a financial agreement when they split up but there is now no record of it [goes to filing cabinet to make sure I still have copies of my divorce documentation...]

[MaryMotherOfCheeses]

Interesting interview with him on the radio this morning. He came across very well, very level headed and principled.


She's involved Mishcon de Reya. Somehow, he is paying for her legal costs because it's still considered "family wealth". So it has already cost him half a million pounds in legal fees.

He employs the now adult son, he's part of the business. She isn't in poverty.


She does sound very grabby to me.

[Want2bSupermum]

From what I understand he didn't pay child support like he should have. I can see where both are coming from but I think its sad that she is doing it to support her other children rather than for the benefit of her son.

There should be some form of punishment for not paying child support. I would say something like taking the amount he should have paid and compounding it using the rate London house prices have increased over the past 30 years then applying a doubling factor as a form of fine. He should also have to do 1000 hours of community service with children whose parents have decided they don't need to pay child support. He left the mother of his child destitute.

They should have a formula though and it should apply to any parent who does not pay child support but has the means to do so.

[prh47bridge]

He said this morning that there had been a financial agreement when they split up but there is now no record of it

There may have been an informal agreement but the evidence given to the court indicated that there was no court order relating to the finances. If they had turned their informal agreement (if there was one) into a consent order she would not have any claim. I understand they were living on benefits at the time they divorced so it may be that they chose not to get a consent order to save money. The fact she is able to make a claim after all these years demonstrates that this can be a false saving.

From what I understand he didn't pay child support like he should have

Do you have a link for that? If she didn't go to the CSA he was only required to pay child maintenance in line with any provisions of any agreement between them. She does not appear to be claiming for unpaid child maintenance. She is claiming for money to buy a house plus life long spousal maintenance. She may get enough money to buy a small house (although that is by no means guaranteed) but it is unlikely she will get any spousal maintenance.

[Want2bSupermum]

It was in the court summary. I understood that he hadn't paid regularly which does make it very hard for the single parent. It looked like there had been missed payments and there was a bit in there about her moving so her son could be close to his dad.

However, I repeat that I question her motive and I think this is a case of someone having sour grapes. She has had 20 years to do something with her life. He hasn't not paid and he was stupid to not get legal advice. She has proceeded to have further children and I question why she didn't remarry.

I also stand by my thoughts that if he owed her support and didn't pay he should pay now. It bugs me greatly that there are so many bitter couples who decide not to support their children. It's not right and any parent who does this when they have the means to pay should be put in prison if they still don't pay. I say this as someone who is married. I had a girl in my class at school have to leave because her dad decided on a whim to stop paying school fees. Poor girl was removed from class, their home was repossessed and they ended up in her grandmas house. Meanwhile he was living it up in Spain only to return once the youngest was finished with their education.

[Rjae]

I read she also brought up his child from a previous relationship as well as their son.

She has worked and not scrounged off the state and her ex did not pay much in the way of child support.

He also had significant earnings when his ex wife was bringing up the children and didn't contribute much to their upkeep.

If she hadn't had 2 of his children to bring up alone I am no doubt she could have earned better money, made a better life for herself and been more financially secure and even made a second marriage which wasn't made more difficult by 2 kids and juggling jobs around them.

This ex husband is a selfish, miserly and unbelievable piece of crap and I cant believe women on MN actually support his decision. Anyone with an ounce of decency would have given his struggling ex wife enough money to help with housing and bills. He is scum, too for not accepting his wifes claim immediately and feeling some shame for his abandonment of her and his children.

[850Pro]

Only one of the kids is his Rjae, it fact it was him that was paying to bring up her child from a previous relationship!