to think that after 20 yeaes you shluld not be leeching off your ex?

[butterfly2015]

The woman who has won the right to screw her ex for money has really pissed me off. 20 years after the split, she remarried, had two more kids and bought her council house but let it fall into disrepair. So now her ex has made.a fortune she's decided to demand money from him.

Excuse the typos. I'm pretty new and I have no idea how to edit.

I agree.

Have some pride, woman.

It's because they never finalised things financially when they divorced. She raised their two children with no financial support from him at all. She's only won the right to have the court look into her application.

I know it's being seen as controversial, but there was a family lawyer interviewed on Radio 2 when I was on my way home and she gave a very balanced review of this case.

The judges who have allowed the application have also made it clear she is highly unlikely to get the amount she has applied for.

They only had one child, her other child was from a previous relationship. Then she had two more from her next marriage.

Her son was 14 when he started his business and it didn't start making serious money for a few years.

Son now lives with dad and works for the company.

I just think it's wrong, she remarried, surely that removes all rights to claim from husband 1.

The telegraph states; He was not required to pay maintenance because it was agreed he had no money.

I hope she gets a large chunk of cash out of the maintance dodger. I can't stand people who refuse to support their children.

If he owes her maintenance for the years she looked after their son then fair enough. If not, or she's asking for more than that then I agree.

I can't see any justification for giving her anything more than what he should have paid in maintenance for their son, adjusted for inflation with interest.

In Scotland she'd be entitled to nothing because only money accumulated before the date of separation counts plus Scotland doesn't really do maintenance so usually you just divide up money accumulated during the marriage and then it's the CSA for child support.
I prefer the Scottish system as women don't look like leeches in it.
It's unclear why she didn't go for child support costs from him, that wasn't fair on the children but as the children are now grown up they should be the ones suing him for that. I don't understand why she gets the money not her adult children.

2rebecca

The mother had the expense of maintaining them so why should the kids be the ones recuperating that from him?

If money is due for child maintenance then its only fair she gets it, since she raised their child.

He paid no maintainence as he had no money. When they split he lived in an old ambulance. So, no he didn't pay for his child but neither did she. She lived off benefits and then another man. So surely the person he should be repaying is the state?

I understand why she should get back money she spent on the child (I think only 1 child is his) if it's money he should have contributed but didn't. His not contributing will have meant she paid more meaning less for her to pay towards a bigger house or a pension.

As far as I know in Scotland you have to make provision for a financial settlement or you don't get the divorce although that settlement can be agreeing there will be nothing.

So what if she remarried?

Do you suddenly forgo your rights to "husband 1" if you remarry?

That's an incredibly sexist view. It's like you go from the property of one man to another.

I've no idea of the facts of the case, but her current marital status should have nothing to do with it.

however so husband 1 is still owe her something 20 years' later? Despite the fact she had nothing to do with and played no part in how he acquired his money?

however so 20 years' later despite playing no part in how he acquired his money she's still due something- why? Just because she was married to him. That is an incredibly sexist view in itself.

Sorry phone playing up

Read my post.

Her current marital status is nothing to do with anything.

No idea what you're getting at.

It comes across as suggesting she should be allowed to leech off her first husband for ever more.

She has foregone husband 1. She divorced him. If on getting divorced from husband number 1 she still had to be reliant financially on him why on earth should he still be paying if she then becomes financially reliant on husband 2?

It's got nothing to do with being husband' s property.

Then you are misinterpreting my post.

Whatever she is legally entitled to from her first husband, as a result of being married to him, (and, it appears, the two of them failing to tie up loose ends financially) has nothing to do with her marital status now. My post was refuting this statement:

I just think it's wrong, she remarried, surely that removes all rights to claim from husband 1.

If I thought she was entitled to 'leech' off her first husband forever more, then I'd have said that. Clearly I didn't. I don't even have an opinion of whether she is entitled to anything now.

My point is, that whatever her current marital status is, it should have no bearing on the outcome of the case.

If you think that her remarriage forfeits any claim, does that mean you think she'd be entitled to 'leech' him of his cash had had she not remarried?

hmm