Advanced search

AIBU to think that this is totally ridiculous and unjust?

(52 Posts)
iLoveCamelCase Tue 07-Feb-17 19:23:16

Woman gets almost all liquid capital, plus maintenance of £1100 per month. Invests capital unwisely, loses it all and seeks to claim higher maintenance payments, for life, from her ex-husband, from whom she was divorced 15 years ago, their dependent child now being grown up? How on earth is this fair or reasonable for the ex-husband?

StealthPolarBear Tue 07-Feb-17 19:27:11

He didn't increase it as such but found he'd been underpaying before
its an odd one. Is this on addition to child maintenance?

witchofzog Tue 07-Feb-17 19:28:51

I saw this yesterday and was shocked and angry on the husbands behalf. This woman has more than most of us receive in a lifetime, is daft with it and then expects her ex husband to support her when she loses it all. Why is he even responsible for her now their child is an adult? She should be ashamed of herself

TheSnowFairy Tue 07-Feb-17 19:29:16

And she lost it in bad property investments...and used to be an estate agent hmm

There must be more to this story that hasn't been reported, it does seem incredibly unfair.

witsender Tue 07-Feb-17 19:33:02

The wording implies that the original capital was seen as joint, presumably to imply that the business he owned recognised her input. As such the maintenance reflects the business success? Maybe?

IneedmoreLemonPledge Tue 07-Feb-17 19:33:35

That's exactly what I was wondering Snow.

If this is a true account then yes, I'm amazed at the front of the woman.

She works two days a week, and expects her ex husband of 15 years to support her. Doesn't sound fair at all.

lalalalyra Tue 07-Feb-17 19:36:22

Is the problem not that they never had a financial order settled? So they weren't sorted finances wise. Now that one or other of them (I assume her) has decided they want the finances sorted they have to be sorted as they stand today?

It doesn't seem fair, but it's absolute madness that he didn't sort/pursue the financial settlement to be signed and sorted before now. I'm always baffled when people ge divorced, but don't sort the clean break.

milliemolliemou Tue 07-Feb-17 19:37:32

I think this may go further up the judicial ladder. There's also a major move to reform the law so this sort of thing can't happen and there will no longer be maintenance for life especially when the young spouse after children are at school can clearly go back to work after being properly provided for as this woman seems to have been (house, monthly income, children provided for). I just hope the new law will be properly framed so it doesn't affect others badly - eg SAHPs who have given careers up to support DPs DCs and DP - and get shafted.

TheSnowFairy Tue 07-Feb-17 19:37:45

I just asked DH if he'd pay me that much for life if we got divorced! Unfortunately, not. envy

witsender Tue 07-Feb-17 19:37:52

There must be more to it. However it sounds like it was a lifetime agreement however long ago. She went back to appeal for a higher maintenance sum, and it was agreed that actually her maintenance had been too low...The judge recognised that. So really it is a non story...She was awarded lifetime maintenance 15 yes ago and was asking for the amount to be reviewed. The value of money has changed in that time.

SaorAlbaGuBrath Tue 07-Feb-17 19:39:10

Women like her piss me off. She had a settlement, she pissed it up a wall. Not his problem.

lalalalyra Tue 07-Feb-17 19:41:24

However it sounds like it was a lifetime agreement however long ago

When they were talking about it on the radio earlier they said the agreement was never actually signed/formalised. Daft error really.

SaorAlbaGuBrath Tue 07-Feb-17 19:42:19

I may be being ridiculous, but why does she need maintenance if their child is an adult? Get a fucking job woman.

witsender Tue 07-Feb-17 19:43:03

Because spousal maintenance used to be a thing. It doesn't happen so much now.

SaorAlbaGuBrath Tue 07-Feb-17 19:44:42

I fully understand child maintenance, and even spousal maintenance to allow a parent to stay home while the kids need them, but leeching off an ex once your kids are grown? Pffft.

iLoveCamelCase Tue 07-Feb-17 19:50:19

Spousal maintenance happens more than you would think! I have been shocked a stories from people I know, where on divorce, women are still granted HUGE spousal maintenance payments and sometimes still for life. I completely agree that where both partners have agreed that one should be a SAHP for the children and then they divorce whilst that is still likely to have had an impact on the SAHP's career and earnings, a limited period of spousal maintenance may still be the right course of action. But I think that in the vast majority of such cases, 5 years is MORE than enough to start earning again and paying your own way! Lifetime support is ludicrous. And as soon as the supported partner begins earning, their earnings should be offset against any spousal maintenance being paid. I agree - woman like this piss me off but that the law allows it pisses me off more.

SaorAlbaGuBrath Tue 07-Feb-17 19:51:38

I'm actually stunned it's a "thing", some people clearly have zero self respect to fund their lifestyle that way. hmm

BillSykesDog Tue 07-Feb-17 19:56:14

I read something earlier which suggested that his assets had been underestimated at the time because he bought a new house outright in the name of the business, rather than himself, he claims for 'tax efficiency'. But as the value of that house was not included, probably because he deliberately concealed it, she was entitled to more.

iLoveCamelCase Tue 07-Feb-17 19:56:54

Zero self-respect and zero respect for somebody else's (someone they once cared enough for to marry!) right to live their own life. Unless there are serious extenuating circumstances (and I don't mean typical things leading to divorce like affairs etc), spousal maintenance for any longer than 5 years - and imo, even 5 years is too long when the supported partner has gained the majority of the capital, reducing or eliminating any accommodation costs and enabling them to save more capital for themselves as a result of solicitor over-egged 'basic needs'.

NeedsAsockamnesty Tue 07-Feb-17 19:57:04

I have no issue with fairly assesed spousal support based on the usual criteria.

Even tho I am significantly likely to end up being the party who pays it should I ever feel the need to marry again

iLoveCamelCase Tue 07-Feb-17 19:59:21

I get that by law, she may have been entitled to more because he 'concealed' the house purchase but the word 'entitled' really sticks in my throat. The law should not allow ex-P's to do this as a matter of course, and particularly not when she has squandered a huge capital sum, it is 15 years since divorce and their dependent child is grown up. Appalling.

PencilsInSpace Tue 07-Feb-17 20:04:02

I suppose if you've been out of the workplace for a loooong time because it was mutually agreed you'd be a SAHP, thus enabling your spouse to really forge ahead in his career and earn a fortune without ever having to worry about as much as an inset day or a dental appt, your own earning potential will be shot to shit pretty much for life. When you eventually go back to work you'll likely not ever earn anywhere near what you could have if you hadn't taken a decade or two out. In those situations I can see the point of spousal maintenance.

BillSykesDog Tue 07-Feb-17 20:08:09

Sorry, just realised that was a similar case, not the same one.

iLoveCamelCase Tue 07-Feb-17 20:13:34

@PencilsInSpace I agree with this. But it is predicated on it being the CHOICE of both people for one to be supported for 'a decade or two' by the other. If the working partner had wanted the sahp to get a job during the marriage once the DCs were of nursery/school age, but the sahp remained at home anyway, then it is not fair for the working partner to then support him/her over and above a limited period to enable them to find employment. They would get child maintenance to support their children. None of us are entitled to be supported as adults, providing we are capable of work. Similarly, it was the choice of both people that one should work, whilst in a mutually supportive relationship - ie one gained financial support and presumably the other gained support in terms of looking after children, housework getting done, meals being prepared etc. When the relationship breaks down, why does ONE party become solely responsible for the choices of a COUPLE, particularly when the mutually beneficial aspect is now defunct? I can see the need for spousal maintenance in these cases to allow someone time to get back on their feet, find work etc but to be supported ad infinitum is not ok.

kali110 Tue 07-Feb-17 20:13:56

Madness confused so because she made a bad investment her exh should give her more money?
Get some self respect, or a job

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