Possibility of Divorce settlement 20 years on...

[NetworkGuy]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-31832392

I can understand that Ms Wyatt was certainly entitled to some form of settlement, and from a radio report (and the web pages) life has been financially challenging for her, so I don't begrudge her wish for some remedy.

What I can see, from Mr Vince's point of view, is that this looks like a very late request, knowing he's worth an estimated 100+ Million.

I think he should have just handed over 2M (assuming he could afford to, without it needing him to sell his business or home, to raise the cash), but also see the point that he feels it is a request "20 years too late".

Now there's not a lot to show that he deliberately hid from her (indeed, if his business was thriving from the mid-90s, there has surely been plenty of opportunity to get some help).

What do others think ? Quite understand she brought up their son alone, and that was unlikely to be easy, but does seem like a long time after to be chasing for cash.

As a single (much older) man, it makes me think "would I even get involved for 5 years with someone" on the {extremely unlikely} possibility I start earning 1M a month from a dotcom idea I have...

If the Mother and Child were disadvantaged for years he should pay. He had a marriage and child with her. A brief relationship belittles their marriage and isn't nice for his ds. The DS will have a home with his Mum and inheritance from her now. My guess is mean Dad when he was a child won't be giving him anything in his will.

The point is he wasn't paying for either child. Fair enough when he was wandering around the countryside in his converted bus after abandoning both his wife and child, but when he started earning something he should have paid what was fair. He didn't and now should at least man up and pay an amount he can easily afford.

Maybe its OK to father children and pay nothing for their entire life? Or not recompense a woman he married for the hardship she had endured because of his fecklessness

Joan - the son now lives with and works got his dad. I imagine there might be quite a lot in the will.

She now lives in a council house she bought that's in a state of disrepair. She shares the house with her two younger children, the younger daughters partner and their baby. So four adults and all unemployed. The daughter stated that they will lose the house if mum doesn't get a settlement. Neither of these kids are his and were the product of a later relationship.

The older daughter is in prison. The son lives with and works for his dad.

It seems this woman has made zero effort to support herself over the years and since all her children are adults surely she, and the children, should be working and paying the mortgage and fixing up the house rather than looking for a meal ticket?

Is she chasing dad's 1 and 3 as well? Or is she just going for the easy option?

£2m won't ever buy her self respect which is what is severely lacking.

Rjae you have really got your facts muddled up here.

Mr Vince didn't abandon his son - he was fully parenting him from day one, supporting Ms Wyatt financially when he could and he gave her cars, washing machines and cash in the early days of his business.
He offered the son a home with him as soon as he was living in a stable house.

Ms Wyatt did not bring up any of Mr Vince's children apart from their own - rather she went on to have another two children herself and has consistently expected Mr Vince to carry on putting money into her household even when their son was living with his father.

She has discouraged the father of her other two children from seeing them and has not tried to make anything of herself in work or otherwise in the 27 years since the split with Mr Vince. You're wrong when you say that she has tried to work - apart from a couple of brief spells in work she has lived on benefits all this time.
I am not a benefit basher, I also have to claim some to survive, but I work as hard as I can.
She has not endured any hardship at all apart from that brought on by her own attitude that the world owes her a living.

There ought to be some time limit after which the status quo is deemed to represent the financial agreement made and no further claim can be made. Five years maybe?

As it stands legally there isn't so she can rightly claim. But surely she should only be claiming her share of the martial assets at the time of the divorce , not what he's made for himself since. And I don't really see how she could argue for spousal maintenance for having sacrificed her career to support his whilst they were married if they were both unemployed and living off benefits.

But surely she should only be claiming her share of the martial assets at the time of the divorce

The Supreme Court stated that there are a number of difficulties Ms Wyatt faces in bringing a claim including the fact that Mr Vince did not begin to create his current wealth until 13 years after the marriage broke down and she has made no contribution to its creation. That doesn't mean she has no claim at all on his current wealth but it does seriously limit her claim.

It seems Ms Wyatt intends to allege that, but for Mr Vince thwarting her attempts to gain a degree (which he denies) her needs would not have reached their current level. She also intends to argue that her responsibility for Mr Vince's son and her older daughter (who was treated as a child of the family and hence Mr Vince does have some responsibility towards her) has prevented her earning more. Mr Vince can counter that she has also had two younger children that are nothing to do with him and her poor health has also stopped her from earning.

Ms Wyatt wants £550k to buy a house and £1.35M to provide a fund to maintain her for the rest of her life. The Supreme Court has already said she won't get anything like that much. She may get something to compensate for the fact she has brought up her children alone with no significant contribution of any kind from Mr Vince (who, for most of the time, was in no position to make any financial contribution). But, given the difficulties she faces in establishing her case, she may well end up with nothing.

Looking at the judgement it seems the fact she did nothing for the first 13 years was down to Mr Vince's lack of money. For the next 4 years she says she was not aware he was becoming wealthy. She does not appear to have any explanation for the last 10 years of delay. This is one of the many factors that may prevent her getting any money from Mr Vince and will certainly reduce the size of any settlement.

How do you take an exh, who can pay the best solicitors and hold a case in court for years, when you do not even qualify for legal aid

You do as she did. You find a solicitor who is willing to represent you for free initially (which should not be too difficult given the current state of the law) and you seek an order forcing your ex to pay your costs to allow you to pursue the action. Alternatively you represent yourself.

And no, a car, a washer and some other little contributions do not add up to match the amount he should have paid in child maintenance

There was an initial court order for a nominal payment (probably £1 per year but the Supreme Court judgement doesn't give that detail) in 1992. In 1997 she referred the matter to the CSA who assessed his liability at nil. Both the CSA assessment and the earlier court order reflect the fact that he had no money and was in no position to pay maintenance. The son became an adult in 2001 and moved in with his father at that point. It is not clear from the judgement how much support he provided prior to 2001.

In any event she cannot now claim for past child maintenance. That ship has sailed. It is only relevant in as much as one of the factors to be taken into account in determining any financial settlement is the relative contributions of the partners to the welfare of the family.

By the way, now that I have read the judgement in full it seems Mr Vince's surprise at the outcome is based on his belief that there was a court order at the time of divorce dismissing Ms Wyatt's application for a financial settlement. I agree with the Supreme Court that this is so unlikely it can be discounted. In the situation at the time it is extremely unlikely the courts would have dismissed Ms Wyatt's application without either her consent or some payment by Mr Vince.

I thought she went to the Supreme Court because the Court of Appeal dismissed her claim, rather than the other way round.

I can't comment on the legal arguments, but I do know this:

Dale Vince is the sort of person who deliberately courts controversy to get publicity for his business.

He's a bit of a tosser and is on record as saying he's not keen on paying his share of taxes either.

He's also incredibly self-righteous.

caroldecker - That is correct. Perhaps a timeline is needed for clarity.

They married in December 1981. Their son was born in May 1983. They separated in early 1984.

The first legal proceedings were in 1991 when Mr Vince applied for residence for their son and Ms Wyatt's older daughter. The courts made an order in early 1992. This order is not available but both parents agree that the court decided that the children would remain with the wife and ordered Mr Vince to pay nominal maintenance. There may also have been a contact order.

Following this Ms Wyatt divorced Mr Vince, the decree absolute being issued in October 1992. The file is missing so it is not clear if Ms Wyatt applied for a financial settlement at this time but Mr Vince believes she did, which is normal practise. Mr Vince believes the court dismissed her application for a financial settlement. Both the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court considered this to be unlikely with the Supreme Court stating that it is so unlikely it can be discounted. If Ms Wyatt's application had been dismissed she could not bring the current proceedings.

Ms Wyatt applied to the CSA for child maintenance in 1997. This resulted in a nil assessment.

In 2011 Ms Wyatt applied for a financial settlement. She requested a lump sum (£1.9M) plus an order forcing Mr Vince to pay her costs in pursuing the case. Mr Vince applied for her application to be struck out. In December 2012 the High Court dismissed Mr Vince's application and ordered him to pay her solicitors £31,250 per month for 4 months.

Mr Vince appealed and in June 2013 the Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's orders, dismissed Ms Wyatt's application for a financial settlement and ordered that she should repay the amount that hadn't been spent on legal fees (nearly £37,000). Given their findings of fact this seemed a surprising decision.

The Supreme Court has now reversed the Court of Appeal's decision, reinstating Ms Wyatt's application for a financial settlement and removing the repayment order. The matter will now go back to the High Court so that they can decide whether or not she is actually entitled to a financial settlement and, if she is, how much she should receive.

prh47bridge I was responding to your comment upthread where you said you were surprised he took it to the supreme court - but as I said he didn't.

I am always confused by this issue.

My Dh and I divorced many years ago with no children and he refused to have compete financial disclosure. We split the house sale fifty/fifty and went our separate ways.

A little while later it turned out he had been lying about his income and had a sizeable amount tucked away including his pension fund.

My lawyer told me as he hadn't disclosed I could still claim half his pension until the point I remarried.

I am happy he is out of my life but I was astounded when he said that.

It just sounds so grabby.

caroldecker - Quite right. I should have said I was surprised he took it to the Court of Appeal.

redrubyindigo - I don't think that's grabby at all. He hid things from you and as a result you may have ended up with less money than you were entitled to.

Red - it isn't grabby at all. My parents divorced and my mother was awarded 50% of the assets and none of the debt. The judge didn't care that this effectively bankrupted my father because my mother hadn't worked in years and wasn't in a position to get a job that could support herself let alone any children.

Luckily my father was able to work with his creditors and through his hard work he was on his feet in 2 years. My mother went on to spend through the money and today she would live in poverty if it wasn't for DH and I supporting her. It is sad that a home my dads family had for generations was sold by my mother. My brother is getting married and the thought was that the home would be for him and his future wife.

A lot of people have talked of my mother being greedy. She was never greedy and it was the judge who painted a picture of my mother being entitled. Well she was there while my dad built his career, she networked with the right wives, learned how to play golf so she could befriend the CEOs wife and she was a single parent while my dad worked around the clock. When they divorced the settlement was final.

Your exH didn't follow the law and left himself open. That is his fault and nothing to do with you. If he had been honest this wouldn't be an issue. Heck if he had been of higher moral fiber you might have still been married!

Marking place

I agree Karma. My Dad was a lawyer with his own firm, and pleaded penury to avoid paying to support us. Meanwhile he would go off and do things like like climb Everest (in the days when flights were extortionately high).

He may feel he won a victory, but he completely lost all respect I had for him.

If its back dated child support then surely it should go to the child?

So if my dad suddenly had a change of heart about the money he didn't give my mother he should give it to me and not to the woman who was struggling to support me and who is financially worse off because she did it alone?

Seriously.

Why is it grabby to go after a hidden pension, that is an exwife's legal entitlement?

I'm just wondering if that £0 assessment for child maintenance was ever right, specially if he was getting wealthy via his own business

The business was only just getting established in 1997. At the time of the assessment it is quite likely that he and his two partners were not receiving any income from the business given the age of the business and the lack of profits. The business certainly was not making enough money to pay anyone a good salary. So, whilst it is possible he hid income to get a reduced assessment I think that is unlikely. Certainly Ms Wyatt has not suggested that the assessment was wrong.

If its back dated child support

It isn't, which is why all this discussion about what he did or did not pay in child maintenance is irrelevant. Ms Wyatt cannot claim for past child maintenance. The court cannot retrospectively order child maintenance. And even if there had been an order for child maintenance in place (which there wasn't) she is far too late to ask for it to be enforced.

Merguez since you know Mr Vince so well, you must know Ms Wyatt as well?

What would your opinion on her be?

This thread has got me thinking about a time I thought I had hopefully forgotten. Ex Dh was having yet another affair and I divorced him.

He refused point blank to have adultery as the reason for the divorce and dragged out the divorce. I was paying all legal costs as I was divorcing him.

He threatened to stop the divorce/house sale/sign anything/go for financial disclosure unless I backed down which I did.

Fucking hell. What the hell did I pay my lawyer for?

He got half the house, kept his pension/secret savings and I was the mug who funded him throughout his degree and paid for the divorce while he shagged other women.

I can hear men cheering from here.