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.

This woman has never missed any opportunity to ask Mr Vince for money over the last 25 years and certainly didn't support him by looking after their child while he set up his business.

Their child was a teenager by the time Mr Vince had started the business and he spent at least an equal amount of time being cared for by his father, who started paying him for helping out with the business.

Ms Wyatt has had the benefit of plenty of money including being bought cars by Mr Vince's business over the years.

The perspective she is offering to the courts now is incredibly skewed. She is lying, no doubt about it, when she says she was in fear of abuse from Mr Vince.
She has a lamentable attitude towards work (for herself at least).

Her teenage daughter has just had a baby so no doubt a few million will come in handy to support another member of her household.

ChippedNailVarnish the father isn't a maintenance dodger.

He has paid everything he was legally supposed to, and much more over the years.
The child was more than adequately supported by his father and has gone on to work in the business with him.

I think she does reasonably have some claim. The child they had together was their mutual responsibility. If when they split this child had stayed with his dad, who had then had to cope with all the time-consuming trials and tribulations of lone parenthood, would he still have been such a success and a multi-millionaire now? If he'd had to drop everything to be at the school gates at 3 in the tricky years when the business was starting up, instead of working hard into the night? I doubt it. So if you can estimate the difference between his financial position now and what it is likely to have been if he'd been juggling lone parenthood - this woman contributed to that amount of money. I don't think it's wrong that she should get a cut of it.

The ONLY thing that has been decided at this point, AFAIK is that the case isn't being AUTOMATICALLY thrown out because of the time frame.

The judge has specifically commented that whatever happens Ms Wyatt isn't going to be getting anything close to the millions she's claiming. She may well still not get anything. All this decision means is that she has the chance to argue her substantive case. I believe that in similar cases the amount eventually awarded has been very small (probably many times smaller than the amount Mr Vince has already spent on legal costs).

Fishwitha I agree that lots of dads rely on their children's mums to pick up the day care so they can get on in business.

But this is not the case here. Mr Vince entered another relationship after splitting with Ms Wyatt, and had another son with his new partner. The 2 boys were cared for together by Mr Vince and his new partner.

My impression is that this is mainly a win for the lawyers.

It shows that where there is no financial order, then finances can be reopened at any time.

Moral of the story: get a financial order, whatever your circumstances.

Agreed AuntieStella.

I hate this "leeching" word use, I know nothing about this case, but if he hasn't supported his child over the years, then why should he just be allowed to get away with that?

So, lets get this straight - after he becomes a multi-millionaire 20 years later, she suddenly needs more money? There must have been a settlement of sorts when they split, so it's her own fault if she didn't ask for a better deal then. No man [or woman] in hs right mind is ever going to commit to marriage if they think they could be taken for a mug 20 years after the marriage is proven not to be working out.

She could have made a better life for herself but she made some bad life decisions, but that's freedom for you. He chose differently and made himself a millionaire - good luck to him!

Watch your backs, XPs - we're coming to get you!

"There must have been a settlement of sorts when they split"

No there wasn't, and that's an important feature of this specific case.

Still, there's a loophole here that needs closing. If there wasn't a settlement, then there should be a mandatory legal time limit set after which you can't go back and claim. I'd go for 2 years, by which time you should have moved on and been able to assess whether you can manage the ££ on your own; certainly not 20! If nothing else, I hope this case changes the law.

I think as he paid no maintenance, he was able to put all his time and money into his business. If he had taken more responsibly for his son then he might not have been so free to get on with work. That should be acknowledged, if only backdated maintenance, but even as an ex she was essentially supporting him by looking after their DS.

Cuttedup, where is the evidence for that?

I don't think there should be any time limit on back claiming CM payments. Otherwise its a case of "dodge it for long enough and you'll get away with it". CM payments aren't about sponging of an ex - they're about making sure NRPs support their children.

If his business had failed and he was absolutely broke and in huge debt would he be entitled to ask her to pay a share of his debts?

No of course not.

They have been divorced 20 years. This woman is just looking for a cash cow to milk.

I've just heard him on Radio 4, being interviewed.

He didn't pay her any maintence but said he bought her "loads and loads of washing machines and cars"

When asked why he didn't just give her some money when she asked for it, he said he was standing up to a principle. Well that principle meant he had to pay for her costs (as she has no money) and he's spent £500,000 on legal fees so far.

He's worth an absolute fortune, he didn't pay his ex regular maintence. He should give her some money. He can afford it.

Greenremembered I know the situation personally.

maybe if he'd paid her £5 a month when she was raising their kid he wouldn't have had to - serves him right

Apparently she has to provide a good reason why she's left it this long to come forward about it. If she doesn't, she won't get a penny.. No doubt her and her legal people are working frantically trying to come up with a reason.

As I understand it, he didn't pay child maintenance for so long as he was as skint as on benefits and living in a old van as she and their child was. It's only been the last few years he's been earning big money. So how can she have a claim against what he has now? What arrangements he has made to look after his child are separate from her getting a payout, legally and morally. I agree with OP.

Well I don't understand why she waited so long to claim. After all these years how is anyone supposed to prove what was or wasn't paid in maintenance, or in lieu of maintenance and judge if that was or wasn't appropriate based on his salary of the time.

Are divorcees supposed to keep every bank statement/cheque book stub/receipt for ever now?

I think as he paid no maintenance, he was able to put all his time and money into his business. If he had taken more responsibly for his son then he might not have been so free to get on with work. That should be acknowledged, if only backdated maintenance, but even as an ex she was essentially supporting him by looking after their DS.

This ^

I think it depends entirely on how much he supported the son he had with her. If he paid child support at the rate he should have, she should absolutely have no ability to do this. If he didn't, she should be able to go after the missed payments but only that.

If it was agreed that no maintenance was due because he had no money, so be it. His subsequent success has no bearing on this imo. From what has been posted above; his son now lives and works with him, so it seems unlikely the son bears any grudge.

chippednailvarnish he absolutely did support his child. To the extent that the child spent most of his time living at his father's by the time the business was starting up.
And Ms Wyatt received plenty from Mr Vince, in cash payments though, so now he can't prove it.

The son of the marriage has always been very well supported indeed by his father.

Now that Ms Wyatt's household has another small child to support (unrelated to Mr Vince) the attraction of his money must seem even stronger than before.

Bobby- he set the business up when his son was 14, so even of he did live with him from then on, the mother had still brought him up for 14 years.