AIBU to think that this is totally ridiculous and unjust?

[iLoveCamelCase]

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/06/court-orders-man-increase-payments-wife-lost-bulk-divorce-settlement/amp/

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?

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.

Well yes, and presumably this is the sort of thing that is hammered out in divorce settlements.

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?

The mutually beneficial aspect is not defunct. The NRP is way ahead in his* career compared with where he would be if he'd had to consider childcare at all, ever. He doesn't suddenly lose all that extra earning potential, which his spouse has helped build, just because he divorces. It's like an asset they have both invested in but only he can use.

*I'm using 'he' here because it's the most common arrangement. It could of course be a high earning woman with a long term SAHD.

PencilsinSpace Yes and in practice you don't have to be out of the workplace for that long for it to seriously impact your lifetime earning and pension potential. The parent who does this is typically also the parent who makes most of the career sacrifices by being the default parent even when they do work, taking lower status work or part time work etc. I note yet another wealthy ex spouse's barrister insisting that the default parent should 'stand on their own two feet'.

In this case the husband had substantial assets (plainly still does) and has been underpaying the maintenance component for years. He should have signed an agreement at the time if he wanted to limit it but that might have exposed the underpayment.

Whether the 'career' spouse has 50p or 50m is not the point however hard the press may try to portray the 'grasping ex ' of a wealthy man/woman.

No - because he elected to avoid a formal financial agreement and then underpaid her for 15 years he should remedy that situation. The percentage of liquid assets she took is meaningless in the absence of information on his total assets.
The only relevance of her poor investment strategy is that if it had worked better she possibly would never have chased him for the underpayment.

Its easy to carp at ex partners, who are coming out of wealthy marriages but these are the same rules which partners at the other end of the spectrum rely on to keep their heads above water and to protect default parents from a life/pension way below what they would have had if the career partner was still in the marriage. Or to put it another way - its a 50/50 arrangement, why should the partner who has prioritised the home and enabled the career partner to succeed not take their 50% when the family business winds up?

I didn't have any assets when I divorced cunt of an XH, however I do now, the thought that that abusive, selfish, dirty bastard who has never so much as once supported his child and to this day uses him to exert some kind of twisted control over me could even attempt to come after any assets I possess makes me utterly sick!

Surprised to see so many women so bothered by a woman getting her legal entitlements.

Cases like this need to follow the law so that other women get what they are legally entitled to as well. Which we fought long and hard for.

I think they often take far MORE than their 50%

They really really don't.

As I said earlier.

If I had a SAHP putting their own future earnings potential at risk whilst they were taking responsibility for the childcare of my children and at the same time saving my household budget more than a grand a week as well as negating the need for all but my version of the minimum in household type employees and all the other stuff that tends to happen with SAHP, I would happily pay lifetime support in the event of a relationship breakdown because chances are that decision will impact on them for the rest their life and imo it would be unfair of me to not take that into account after I had taken my benefit from the arangement.

*Surprised to see so many women so bothered by a woman getting her legal entitlements.

Cases like this need to follow the law so that other women get what they are legally entitled to as well. Which we fought long and hard for*

But she's lost all her money due to bad investments and her own stupidity. To dress this up as feminism at work is fucking ridiculous and frankly disgusting.

It doesn't need a dress. There will be reasons for this that you aren't aware of, given that the reporters will neither have the full story and need it to suit their own slant anyway.

Aye, ok then I am never going to have any sympathy with someone who manages to piss away £230,000 in 15 years and then mooches after someone else's money instead of making their own. It's bullshit, and you know it.

Completely agree, Saor

I don't know it, and neither do you.

It's always family money when its the man who goes out and does the business, facilitated by a sahw/m who does all the wifey work, and often helps with the business too. Then he leaves her or they split and suddenly its his business, and if in a few years its worth millions well fuck her, she should get a job and stop being a sponge.

You don't need to be a rad feminist to see the problem there. So what if she got some money before? The law says she is owed more, so fair fucks to her is what I say!

iLoveCamelCase I'm glad I'm not talking shite and it does make sense!

Absolute rubbish. In that circumstance, she got what she was owed at the point of divorce. And even if there are grounds to say she is entitled to more capital if the business suddenly takes a fortunate upturn in later years (thanks to the work of the person concerned SINCE the divorce, so I would dispute this), how does this entitle her to his income ongoing for the rest of her life?! The law may permit it but I hope changes are afoot, as it is wrong. Not a one of us is entitled to ANY financial support from anyone if we are capable of work. She absolutely SHOULD get a job after pissing away £230 000 if she has any shortfall to meet her 'basic living needs'. Fifteen years on, with no DCs at home, her 'basic living needs' are her own concern!

Good to know that internet randoms know more about the case than the judges who adjudicated it, based entirely on newspaper reports.
How very impressive of you.

I'm amazed at women jumping on another woman, based purely on one article. Horrible.

Maybe some women jumps on this woman because they have a notion of self respect and know that women can get a job and are not responsible for their own life. Like any adult human, man or woman.
Maybe, just maybe if she had been stifled on the first settlement, she could get a corrective sum, but lifetime spousal support is infantilising crap. Especially since when they divorced she was young enough to go back to work and start again her career. We are not talking about a 65yo suddently divorced with nothing in her name here.
Moreover, this kind of judgement may come back to bite women in the ass since more and more women are the breadwinners in their families.

*are responsible

Personally, I think if you've agreed with your spouse of either sex that one of you will break their career, you should expect to have a financial responsibility to them even if you don't love them anymore.

It's a bit much to leave someone with a ruined career and a couple of decades of missed pension contributions with a shrug and the advice to get some self respect if you both agreed to the situation.

Spouses and families are not disposable. You can't just sever all responsibility just because it's convenient.

The whole point was that she didn't get what she was entitled to at the point of divorce and that he has gotten away with that for years.

The fact that her investment strategy failed is irrelevant. If she had succeeded she possibly would never have gone back to pursued him for what he had owed her from the point of divorce. Businesses success and businesses fail - I don't know if hers failed due to bad decisions or bad luck but that has nothing to do with him avoiding paying the correct support at point of divorce.

It's his defence that tried to suggest that she'd been reckless with the money. Whereas the Judge has agreed that she hasn't got what the original agreement stated.

""The judge had also accepted that her finances and ability to work had been "hindered" by health problems she has experienced over the last decade.""

""Here was a woman, left (in 2002) with responsibility for a young child, without enough money to buy a house which was good enough in her view. It was reasonable for her to get a mortgage.""

"""The judge made an error of principle. The order should have been that the husband pay maintenance in the sum of £1,441 a month until further order of the court," he said. "The husband has and had the ability to make the maintenance payments asked for."
No value was put on Mr Mills's business interests, but the court was told he had previously been able to draw dividends from them of up to £200,000 a year.""

She got what was rightly agreed in the original settlement, nothing more.

Moreover, this kind of judgement may come back to bite women in the ass since more and more women are the breadwinners in their families.

You seem not to realise that the law already applies irrespective of the sex of the 'breadwinner'. The judgement was applying standard law in remediating a 'breadwinner' who had not paid the appropriate amount for years. The same law without which the taxpayer would end up providing long term support for ex spouses further down teh financial scale (unless you are proposing wealthy 'breadwinners' should get special treatment and take a bigger cut of the family cake on account of being wealthy)

Liquid assets are not the same as the assets held by the couple. She got a lump sum and maintenance and he got businesses that allowed him to draw dividends of up to £200k pa. I don't think he did too badly. She was the resident parent and suffered health problems. The Court of Appeal granted the increase which suggests it's not quite as simplistic as the headlines suggest.

Especially since when they divorced she was young enough to go back to work and start again her career. We are not talking about a 65yo suddently divorced with nothing in her name here

The very words you used, yet appear to not register in this bit of your post are

start again

If she hadn't contributed towards his not shoddy buisness interests by taking care of everything she did, and as such assisting him being in a far better position afterwards, she wouldn't have to start again because their positions would have equity.

Are you seriously this outraged about a higher earner in a couple being told they need to remember the contribution the none earner made towards their own sucess, and that this contribution impacts on the rest of the life of the none earner or do you just totally invalidate that sort of familŷ contribution?