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

Xenia - abuse is a really difficult one and I don't think this is the place to discuss it.

But how can you reduce marriage to the terms of an employment contract? Just because one party earns less than another doesn't mean that they brought less materially to the marriage, that they were properly treated etc. Lots of women earn less because their husbands expect them to do far more family nurturing (I am not even including housework and childcare) and that takes a great deal of time and effort.

And Quattrocento's point is very valid. If a joint decision has been made for one party to give up working to look after the family, they should in no way be penalised for that on divorce.

I think the entire perspective is being lost because of the amount of money involved - if this was in a different proportion eg she had been awarded £50k of his £350k fortune, then I think the discussion would have been very different.

Xenia - Very sorry about your marriage - as I sense you are - and you were raising valid points about how property should be divided.

Cool - yes I agree

Where there is very little money the non working wife often gets 100% of the only asset - the house until the youngest child is 18 or she moves a new man in and then the husband gets may be 30% of the equity but only at that point because the needs to house the children are paramount.

Here the lump sum was enough for a clean break. In the Macfarlane case the £1.5m was not enough for a clearn break so she the housewife got £250k for life in addition.

It just makes you wonder why girls shoudl do anything other than be idle, pretty and marry a rich man.

so what if some girl is pretty, idle and ends up marrying a rich man? There are far greater injustices in the world.
And if the rich guy falls for some gold digger, then that's his problem.
But, to compare the Charman case to that is grossly unfair as I don't think she comes across as a gold digger at all - people are keen to castigate her purely because it is a ludicrous amount of money.

She didn't have to take so much money. Many of us don't take what we can have. There is no legal obligation to do so. Plenty of men and women say I could have 50% but I won't take a penny or I'll take enough for a house and a modest income. I think she did see it altruistically in part because she didn't want a precedent set that would harm others in big money cases where one earns more than the other but she got 36% which is a pretty high percentage of some big sums.

Surely therefore any sensible parent should be encouraging their daughters to have breast surgery, high lights, learn to mix and find rich men and take it from there because what's the point in earning your own money when you can live off a man in 2007 and take the fruits of his labours in the classic way. Although in some ways that is what my ex husband did.

I think I am a sensible parent although I accept I might be guilty of self delusion.

What I teach my daughter is to try her hardest, and to be kind and good. Every now and again I throw in a few messages about the need to be economically independent as well.

There are two practical flaws with your plan Xenia. Apart from it not being a particularly good credo to live by. Firstly, how on earth can a gal tell who is going to be financially successful? By the time a gal might have worked out who was going to be a millionaire, someone else might have snaffled him. Secondly, not all men like surgically enhanced figures and highlights. I admit that some do. But not all, and certainly not the sort of chaps you might want to marry ...

She didn't have to take so much money.

Xenia, I quite agree. She should have had more - ie, half.

I suppose girls used to "come out" at 18 and be introduced to suitable boys or their parents introduced them to the right children of their friends or they used to go to those secretarial colleges in Oxford to meet boys at Oxbridge. I'm not sure. My sister in law met my brother on a skiing holiday. There must be places you can go to meet the right people. If you want to go the route of not bothering with loads of exams and school work because you'll give it up to breed anyway but want a well off man.

Xenia - but do you think that educated men want to marry women less well educated than they are these days?

I don't know any... female brains and education seem on the contrary to add a lot of worth to a woman's value in the marriage stakes these days. Female careers are more of a hindrance if you look at the statistics.

Not with all men by any means. I suppose she could do history of art at Cambridge or something so they had something to talk about. So are you saying get the qualifications but not pursue the career then as the best investment? Surely the old Finishing schools which gave girls the ability to talk about most subjects did just as good a job as working 10 hour days throughout your 20s only to give up work completely at 30 when you might be able to make some real money.

I think most people get married because they enjoy one another's company, and that is also the driving motivation to have children - to enjoy their company. Which is why both parties need plenty of education, because otherwise they won't be able to be on the same wavelength.

The trouble with two-major-career couples is that they then don't have enough time to enjoy each other's company, let alone that of their children. And their children get brought up by other people, so then they don't have much in common with their parents, and the vicious circle continues with whole familes ending up not knowing what's going on in one another's lives.

Careers/money earning need to be seen in the context of family life. Family life is not something to be fitted in around careers/money earning. And education does not serve only to earn money.

I think that if the man cheated (not saying that this is the case here) then he should deserve to end up with little or nothing as it's breaking a contract!

I like the point whereby she is trying to keep it for the children, although if they are over 18 then why not just give them the money now?

He is wanting to keep it for the children in trust for them and she wants to break the turst and take the money but I suppose none of us really know the truth and we don't know the couple. There is argument rich people shiuld be like Bill Gates and tell the children you don't really get much. That's better. I have told mine they are likely to be in their 60s when I die so there's no point in living life as if you'll get money from me other than what I've spent on your education.

Anna well you know I don't agree. Two career couples have fair even workable lives both with interesting things to talk about their work and for many couples that's great. Obviously it works for you how you have things but I think over all most couples both want to work and manage their family well doing that. I think that's the better way to organise family life and I know you don't agree but we're not going to convince each other.

Yes, you want someone you can get on with and I suppose if you've both been educated to the same level that helps. If a man hasn't been to university and is very different from me I am not so interested because usually it means there's less to talk about and I'm sure that works the other way. If I had been a housewife for 20 years and my interests were washing powder and how best to clean the floor I doubt I would be so interesting to some men.

Xenia - but you can turn your argument round quite easily. Lots of men who never do anything but work become terrible career bores and have no real interests whereas their wives, who have worked some of the time and done lots of other things with their families, are much more fun and stimulating company. I can think of quite a lot of examples of couples like that BTW.

I don't think, like you, that there is one working model. I just try to show you that there are plenty of working models beyond the one you promote so enthusiastically.

But I don't think I could easily be with a man who wanted to stay home and look after our children and when I got in would tell me the colour of the child's bowl movements or what they saw at the park or even what they'd read in the paper or how many press ups he'd done at the gym. I'd want to hear about their real life in the real world. I certainly agree that there are lots of different kinds of couples who make things work for them.

Putting 50% of your assets at risk if you choose to remarry at my age is a huge risk when prenups aren't enforceable.

Oh well, if you would prefer to hear about what happened on an Excel spreadsheet to someone wearing a grey suit and think that's the real world... I'd rather hear about someone's day out and about in the city and what's changed, or in the countryside, about their house renovations, their garden, the many and varied people that one comes across in the course of daily life, about friends and family from other countries and what they are up to ...

Xenia - sounds to me like you want a gaurantee ......you say for your money, but I think it sounds more like for love.