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.

I think it's good that she won the right to have her claim considered, because it opens a precedent that may help women with genuine claims.

But in her case, she should get close to nothing. Maybe a couple of years child maintenance from the time his business started making money and the child was underage, but that's about it. She should have no windfall from wealth her ex amassed after the divorce, it's ridiculous.

This case hasn't been that accurately reported (there's a surprise).

The Court of Appeal (this country's second highest court) struck out the woman's case on the grounds

"a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the application;
b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings "

And all the Supreme Court has done is to reverse that ruling and allow the case to be heard. It has, however, expressed strong scepticism that she will succeed, at least for what she claimed, noting that:

• an award of the amount she is claiming is "out of the question";

• that her delay has been "inordinate";

• that the marital cohabitation lasted scarecely more than two years (!);

• that it broke down 31 years ago;

• that the standard of living 'enjoyed' by the parties prior to the breakdown could not have been lower;

• that the husband did not begin to create his wealth until 13 years after the breakdown; and

• "the wife has made no contribution, direct or indirect, to its creation".

It would probably make sense for there to be some limitation period in bring such claims (in the absence of fraudulent concealment of assets).

As the husband said on R4 the other day the son has lived with the father since he was 17. the couple split up 32 years ago and divorced 20 years ago and he had a settlement with her then but it is so long ago he cannot find it and nor can the courts apparently! which must be very frustrating. Do always store things for years and years, make back ups of back up,s lodge copies elsewhere.

if you don't get that clean break settlement or court consent order at the time there can be later claims.

Wow, Aga, that is indeed a hatchet job. I tend to agree with Tiggie that the principle is a sound one but this particular case is highly questionable.

Aridane they said she would succeed but not to the extent of £1.9 million.

She's also not paying her legal fees - he is, so she has very little to lose.

No - the Supreme Cort did not say she would succeed. They merely referred the case back to the Family Division for determination and expressed a (non binding) opinion that the former wife had a "real prospect of comparatively modest success"

Supreme Court also commented that the former wife's inordinate delay might be "so potent a factor as not just to reduce but even to eliminate" her claim

Serves him bloody right I say.

Why wasn't he motivated to go out and earn a living years ago when he had a young son that needed supporting?

Because he and she were hippies. That was their choice.

Firstly, don't confuse being a hippy with being a layabout. There are lots of hippies out there doing nice hippy jobs- I should know, I live with one.

But secondly- isn't that rather the point? He chose not to work to support his son, even though he knew he was growing up with his mother in poverty. Well now it suits him to go out and earn an extremely good living, why shouldn't he be reimbursing her?

I don't think there is generally a principle of 'reimbursement'. Both parties chose a life of poverty, essentially, through their lifestyles. And she later chose to hamper her own working capability by having two more children with a man she had only a brief relationship.

Maintenance was due, if he could pay it, in order to keep their child out of poverty, as a basic public policy principle - we don't want children growing up in poverty if there's someone around who can pay to avoid that.

Now that the son is in his 30s, that's irrelevant - there is no longer a child to raise so maintenance is not relevant, and any reimbursement presumes that she lost out from having a child, which isn't necessarily the case - she got a council house at half the market value, which she probably wouldn't have got if she had been childless, she would get various benefits and so on.

Her position really couldn't be much weaker.

Yes and those of us who have our children full time after divorce and work full time and our ex chooses not to have the children even a night a year is that burden on the resident parent - yes although a nice one full of cuddles and love - yet where the richer spouse pays the poorer and the richer keeps the children (choice of the poorer in my case) then how do you sort out that issue?

What has actually shocked me (mildly, obviously) is how bloody awful the reporting of this has been in the news.

As pp, notably aridane have tried to explain, the Supreme Court decision has NOT award her money.

The SC decision is based on a point of law. There is a hole in the divorce and spousal support law at the moment which means there is no time limit on financial claims if a financial agreement wasn't made at the time of the original divorce.

This is a really old hole, we're talking about laws from the 1950s and 1970s.

Mrs Wyatt had a claim in the High Court where judges said that yes, becase there was no time limit she had a right to claim.

Mr Vince took it to the Court of Appeal where the previous decision was overturned.

Mrs Wyatt then took in on another appeal to the Supreme Court.

On a pure point of law, there are no time limits to her making a claim and therefore the Supreme Court have agreed that it should go back to the High Court where her claim will be considered again. The High Court may well decide that she has no right to money, and she may not receive anything.

But this seems to be the complete opposite of what is being reported.

The hole in the law, morally, looks as though it needs fixing. It quite possibly will be, either with the forthcoming High Court decision or by an amendment to the relevant piece of legislation.

The Times reporting has been exactly as Thurlow says so it may just depend on what newspapers you read. Radio 4 was also accurate.