Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

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

139 replies

butterfly2015 · 11/03/2015 23:32

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.

OP posts:
lalalonglegs · 12/03/2015 10:26

I listened to several experts talking about this on the radio over the course of yesterday. They all agreed it was an extremely speculative claim that would be very unlikely to bring Ms Wyatt much in the way of a windfall. I wondered if she was doing it as some sort of retaliation against Mr Vince - as he has to pay all her legal bills and whether their son will have to testify against one or other them if this is heard in court (he is now in his 30s). What would his take on it be?

Boofy27 · 12/03/2015 10:49

I have a close relative who has never paid a penny in child support. He thinks that he's supporting his kid by strutting in with the occasional big ticket item, like a washing machine, but wont hand over cash payments to allow the mother of his children to budget and never before things have reached crisis point for his kids. He can't stand to give up his control.

I'm told that his behaviour isn't that uncommon.

If the multi millionaire in question was that kind of father (I hope that he wasn't but spending half a million pounds in legal fees rather than handing over a hundred thousand in settlement, suggests he is) his former wife deservs a nice big settlement.

lalalonglegs · 12/03/2015 10:55

She's not asking for £100,000 - she's asking for £1.9million.

TheFecklessFairy · 12/03/2015 10:56

Is she going to pay back all the benefits she received during those years?

AgaPanthers · 12/03/2015 11:02

There is already a thread here:

AgaPanthers · 12/03/2015 11:05

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/2328718-Claiming-settlement-many-years-post-divorce

To be clear:

(a) she did most of the childcare
(b) she did nothing to support him to start the business, because by the time he started it the son was already 14

wowfudge · 12/03/2015 11:45

I think other posters have covered the salient points, but just to clarify a couple of things: she has not been awarded any money; she has been given the right to make a financial claim after initially being denied this, incorrectly, as there is no time limitation on making such a claim.

When they were together her child from a previous relationship was treated as their child, i.e. he was the father to that child and the child they had together.

bereal7 · 12/03/2015 11:46

Shock I'm shocked and disgusted.

He was poor and ppaid what he could. He can't have been a bad father if his son eventually moved in with him. She has hot some nerve ; 20 years later, remarried , more children and she wants to claim from her ex ? Jesus wept !

I'd rather pay £5 million to the lawyers than her give her a penny ! Greedy cow

bereal7 · 12/03/2015 11:50

The law is wrong here. There SHOULD be a time frame ! This has really wound me up actually.

namechangeafternamechange · 12/03/2015 11:54

I'm quite thankful this has been reported tbh, my OH has just filed for divorce but thought a 'clean break' order wasn't necessary as neither of them have anything.....he's already spoken to his solicitor today Grin

I agree with the many pp's who think this is out of order. How can she justify a claim 23 years after the divorce?? She's trying it on and the only people that are going to benefit from this are the legal teams on both sides who are probably rubbing their hands with glee.

Isn't it weird how there are reports, both in the last couple of weeks, that show the absolute opposite ends of the scale? The woman who's been told to get off her lazy arse and get a job and stop leeching off her exH after 20 years, and now this..the woman who thinks she's entitled to demand millions 20 years after divorce because he has finally made something of himself. The opinions on the former are completely contradictory to the opinions on the latter food for thought

namechangeafternamechange · 12/03/2015 11:58

wow did he legally adopt the dc from her previous relationship? Whether it be right or wrong morally, legally he has no responsibility to the dc if he didn't so this has no relevance.

exmrs · 12/03/2015 12:00

I must be the only one who thinks if he didn't pay regular maintenance then yes he should pay something, not a million but something.

I find it u nfair the resident parent gives up 18 years of their lives whilst non resident parent gives small amount each week or not and can get on with their lives with no responsibility

MissPenelopeLumawoo2 · 12/03/2015 12:02

I don't think she has waited 20 years to try and get money off him. When they split up he was skint, there was no money for her to have. She did 14 years of bringing up her son before he started to make some money. This ruling of yesterday did not just happen out of the blue, the case has been through the courts and the appeal courts, that takes a long time, so she must have started the process many years ago.

If the father of my children became very successful and rich,Ii would expect that he would ensure that their lifestyle was as comfortable as the children's from his latest marriage, no matter how many years had passed. Isn't that what responsible parents do?

bereal7 · 12/03/2015 12:04

exmrs he did pay - when he could. The man lived in a van. Was he supposed to pay with blood? He's taken care of his child and now has given him quite some money.

She didn't pay for her child either btw. The state did. Maybe he should be paying the state then.

850Pro · 12/03/2015 12:05

I think its up the courts to decided if she deserves anything, i personal dont think she does at all.

but the shocking thing is that he is being made to pay for her legal costs?? how the fuck is that fair?

wowfudge · 12/03/2015 12:06

No idea namechange.

AgaPanthers · 12/03/2015 12:11

"but the shocking thing is that he is being made to pay for her legal costs?? how the fuck is that fair?"

According to the court ruling, he basically upped the ante with expensive lawyers and procedures, which she couldn't possibly afford.

850Pro · 12/03/2015 12:15

that's still not his problem, she is just a money grabbing bitch, i hope she gets nothing.

frumpet · 12/03/2015 12:16

He should be paying her fee's if he was naive enough to presume that getting a more expensive legal team would make it go away . Who know's what has occurred over the last few years of legal wrangling and what the starting point was ?

wowfudge · 12/03/2015 12:19

This could be a storm in a teacup. When the application is before the judge or judges they could very well decide she is not entitled to anything. All she has won is the right for her application to be heard.

EveBoswell · 12/03/2015 12:19

Hmmm. Food for thought. What if she divorced the current respondent/defendant and remarried. Then the second husband died. I wonder if she'd be able to go back to the first one. Do we know if she'd still married to number 2?

850Pro · 12/03/2015 12:20

so if the next court decided she doesn't deserve anything at all, do you think she should be made to pay him back?

exmrs · 12/03/2015 12:21

Bereal if she bought her council house as mentioned in posts above then she must have had a job to get a mortgage so she did support her child.

exmrs · 12/03/2015 12:24

Also whether he lives in a van or not he still should have paid a regular minimal amount of maintenance , i would have thought if he lived in a van he would have less outgoings so more money available.
Even if he was unemployed and living in a van then he should have paid the £5 a week/ fortnight

OVienna · 12/03/2015 12:25

I'm disgusted by this case too. She's just trying it on.