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...

I just thank fuck it turned out he was a Jaffa and I didn't have kids with the tosser.

Ahh well. He is some other poor woman's problem now.

As a man I am not cheering at all.

If he hid assets at the time of the divorce you are still able to go back to court and demand more.

Did your solicitor propose that you shared the costs of the divorce provided you went for unreasonable behaviour rather than adultery? That is what normally happens. However, the bulk of the costs would almost certainly have been related to the financial settlement. Normal practise here is that both parties pay their own costs regardless of the reason for the divorce.

Although prh this man in the papers paid both side's costs and I paid both side's legal costs as the higher (female) earner in my divorce by the way.

In this case the court has just said the high court can look at the case not that the woman is going to get a penny. Secondly the man thinks he had a settlement 20 years ago but he and the courts cannot find it. The lesson from that is keep these kinds of documents always, have copies, lodge extra copies with family members, store in the cloud and all over.

Thirdly always have a sealed binding court consent order not some kind of verbal or even signed document which is not sealed with the court and it MUST be a clean break without a penny of maintenance for the spouses to be free of that person for life.

Finally worth these days if you have to marry at all having a pre or post nup but follow the rules - both sides need their own lawyers, it must be a long time before the weeding 6 wees, 3 months etc, make sure both sides fully disclose everything and it must make reasonable provision for the other person.

Yes, Mr Vince is paying both side's costs. The law now allows courts to make an order forcing one side to pay the others costs in financial settlement proceedings. This is to avoid a situation where one party can't afford to bring proceedings against the other.

Agreed with the above. Just to add that I agree with the Supreme Court on point 2. Mr Vince believes there was a settlement which did not require him to pay any money to Ms Wyatt. In the circumstances that is highly unlikely.

I would also add that pre- and post-nup agreements are NOT binding. The courts will take them into consideration but may choose to ignore them even if they have been drawn up correctly.