big money divorce case settled

[poppy34]

Seems to be more on point of principle about whether or not the family trust assets were included as part of his wealth that decided her settlement. More interesting is comment that need to revisit divorce law - it does seem that there have been a spate of cases over last 2 years and fact that they've been looking at rights of cohabiting couples that this is somewhat overdue.

\link\www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397861-details/Mucca%27s+brief+wins+wife+£48m+payout/article.do\charman case

redo the link - Link link

Is that address right?

should be - link to the evening standard bit on this. Doubtless you might get a slightly less emotive write up in other papers tomorrow

OK, total marital assets £131m, 28 year marriage inc. kids... £48m seems reasonable to me. It's only just over a third of the joint assets.

I gather he tried to palm her off with 15 per cent. Glad he's got his comeuppance tbh, hope the Lords confirm the High and Appeal Courts' judgements.

I just love all these very wealthy men who think they can ditch the wife after years of marriage without a fair share of the assets. Poor ickle lambkins.

(And the courts have seen through the rich man's trick of putting most of the assets in a trust 'which it just so happens I can't touch'. Good)

another link here business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article1834030.ece

Its not just wealthy men though edam - just ask xenia... Have another friend who has been taken to the cleaners by her ex on these principles and he has a well paid job of his own.

No, of course it's not just the man, but given the relative distribution of wealth on gender lines, men tend to be richer than women.

Edam suppose you've got a point- trouble is the whole area of uncertainty on some of these cases is making for some particularly difficult cases and a lot of rich lawyers .

I'm probably being naive in thinking that there has to be an easier way to settle all this recognising everyone's contribution but then again by the time you get to this type of divorce settlement the time for talking it through and compromising before you get to court (which is I think what xenia did in the end) has probably passed.

Well, I think there'd be less uncertainty if the higher earner just accepted that they are married and so joint assets should be divided jointly. As in close to 50 per cent for a lengthy marriage.

think that is pretty much where things were after white case and even in shorter marriages think this was reinforced by the miller case last year as seemed to enforce fact taht length of marriage wasn't necessarily key.

Will be quite intersting to see where mccartney case (in terms of implications as he earned a lot of his wealth pre marriage)comes out but as I suspect they'll settle out of court/undisclosed I'm not sure we'll ever know.

There's no justification for 50% in my view at all but that's the law now. The judges in this case have asked the Government ro review it and Mr Charman might get leave to appeal so we'll see.

What is particularly unfair is his wife agreed years ago some of their assets would go in trust for the children in Bermuda. Very common if you have a lot of money and intend to benefit the children. Then on the divorce she wants the £48m but he doesn't have it and the Bermudan courts probably won't undo the trust. So he might have to give her 100% of his UK assets, sell his company and lose his job.

Women or men who are given a life of ease with nannies and cleaners during a long marriage to a rich man or woman should be paying the spouse back for that on divorce not vice versa. (writing a woman who had to pay out to a man, the law being sexually neutral)..

Xenia, not read the case - not my field - better say that up front and right now - but how on earth could they conclude that the trust assets were included?

That's been the most interesting bit about it. I haven't read the judgment either.I@ve read press comment from her side that he just put it in trust to get round the divorce pay out and from his side that they mutually put them into trust 10 years ago for the children - the boys are 24 and 22 I think.

Will the Bermuda courts break the trust - might be interesting. If not he's caught between a rock and a hard place so that's why he might have to sell his company and lose his job so she gets 100% of the availlable assets in effect.

Judgment here for those so inclined:
Charman v Charman

Was going to look it up myself when I had a minute - thanks Lilymaid

Now I understand why they ruled as they did. The point at issue is that the funds in the trust WERE available to the husband and the trustees could advance the funds to him and was in fact a named beneficiary.

So I don't think the husband is likely to be bankrupted, Xenia. He'll do okay.

Possbily. I'd read but it might just be press / PR spiel that the he might not be given them money from the trustees. I haven't read the judgment. I think you should get back what you put in, not a windfall bonus because your spouse worked hard and did well.

Presumably people would be better off telling their children to target rich people (like that Lord Shaftesbury, 61,m who was murdered by his 40 year old 3rd wife apparently for his money) as an easier way to wealth. If Mrs C had remained in the civil service she might have earned £30k a year by now. I just can't see a moral basis for giving her £48m.

Okay, let's hypothesise. I mean really hypothesise.

Two people trot up the aisle together and take a vow that they'll endow one another with all their worldly goods.

25 years later, the man (who's done pretty well) skedaddles off to Bermuda. He's been a completely absent parent throughout the marriage. Probably a serial adulterer too. In the run up to moving off to Bermuda, he stashes a lot of the joint assets away ... claiming joint property is not joint property ... you know the drill.

Rather unfairly, you have to picture the man as having a midlife crisis. I'm talking botox and shapely young girlies here.

The woman is worried about her children. The ones she raised. The man is off on a yacht with a bevy of trophies.

If the woman wanted the money to make sure it passed to her children and grandchildren, rather than the children and grandchildren of 1000 bimbos, would you not think that was fair?

BTW I have no clue whether any of the above applies in this case. I'm just saying we're guilty of jumping on a bandwagon of thinking Mrs C is a useless golddigger when we really don't know if that's true.

The moral basis for giving her £48m? That's easy. That was the original contract. "All my worldly goods..."

But "all" and on divorce it's not all. Therefore why 50%? There's no basis in the marriage contract for 50% or 0%. It's not a matter of that. He married her when the law said the higher earner which is often female these days like me, pays for reasonable needs and then suddenly in about 2000 the judges decide to change it to 50%.

I don't see why any adult should have money they haven't earned or inherited themselves on divorce.

Xenia - a marriage contract is not a contract of employment to be terminated at either party's discretion.

If marriage were a contract of employment, your argument would hold - no (or very little) compensation.

I don't often disagree with Xenia, but I do think that this all a bit narrow-minded (the gold-digger thing) It is very difficult to quantify Mrs C "added-value" to the marriage, but I do think, that bearing in mind she is no longer really able to get a meaningful job with powerful earnings, she does need to be compensated for the fact that she now has no retirement pension or anything else. Everybody is up in arms about the amount, but it has very little to do with that. He's pissed off because he has found out she would originally have accepted between 7 - 12 million and she wants a fair and equitable way of continuing to live.
And anyone who rolls their eyes and mutters "yes, but £48 million" - actually, yes. People with that much money are different to other people and have a different view on the world.
But, in some small way, I think it is truly offensive that she has been labelled a gold-digger.

Xenia - I sometimes wonder whether you didn't view your own former husband as a sort of employee... and when he failed to contribute to your required standards you fired him... don't want to be nasty at all, but I have seen others in that position.

Xenia, you say "I don't see why any adult should have money they haven't earned or inherited themselves on divorce."

The reality of modern family life is that having two parents who work full time is very stressful. It's a constant rush. So to make space and time for family life it is easier for one parent either to stay at home, or to take a career down-grade by working part-time. Not to mention that some parents don't earn enough to cover childcare costs therefore it would not be logical for them to work.

So what you are saying is that one party or the other should be penalised for what is effectively a joint decision. That doesn't seem entirely reasonable.

What is a persons worth though.

I mean I am a SAHM but by that I mean I do all the childcare, housekeeping etc. etc. But did she do this, or did she have an army of nannies and cleaners?

If she was out as a lady-who-lunches while poorly paid staff did the actual graft then she didn't deserve that amount. If she did it all herself while he was out earning the cash then she does deserve it. Big difference.

I suspect she was a very good and loving wife and mother and now she's a volunteer magistrate. I just don't think that's worth £48m . I thikn we should go back to reasonable needs which used to be a mortgage free house and enough income to live on and a pension share.

And what about where you both work full time as we did. Why should the lower earner get a huge windfall?

A, I didn't sack him for non performance materially. I'm not particularly materialistic. If I hadn't been abused I would still be married but we reward misconduct in the UK on divorce so there it is.

She also probably aided him in his career. Cooked for his clients, mingled with people he worked with. Contributed to his image