Jump to content

Money Grabbers band wagon jumpers.


Recommended Posts

Guest sibon
20 years after a divorce is too long for an award to be made. Is there any escape from this utter lunacy from the courts?

 

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

 

I usually agree with court decisions on the basis that they have seen the facts in full, not just a snippet from an outraged Daily Mirror or Daily Mail. But the divorce laws do seem iniquitous.

 

It is a really odd case.

 

If it had been for the support of their kid, then I'd have understood.

 

However, this is really baffling. She had no need to endure 16 years of hardship, nor was she forced to live in a caravan. She's lived through the most prosperous era in human history and yet she makes a claim upon a bloke that she had a relationship with 20 years ago.

 

The judge was quite telling though. His comments suggest that she wont get much in the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 years after a divorce is too long for an award to be made.
Only according to you, not to the courts.

 

Is there any escape from this utter lunacy from the courts?
Yes. Don't get divorced. Stay married!

 

 

I usually agree with court decisions on the basis that they have seen the facts in full, not just a snippet from an outraged Daily Mirror or Daily Mail. But the divorce laws do seem iniquitous
.

No! All the court said was that she could have her claim heard. It didn't say that she had a right to any money. Why is that iniquitous?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only according to you, not to the courts.

 

Yes. Don't get divorced. Stay married!

 

 

.

No! All the court said was that she could have her claim heard. It didn't say that she had a right to any money. Why is that iniquitous?

 

I bet it's not just me that thinks this.

 

Erm my advice is don't get married in the first place if you are remotely wealthy.

 

The divorce laws in general seem iniquitous to me. How can a contract have such far reaching consequences and supersede all other contract law.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 years after a divorce is too long for an award to be made. Is there any escape from this utter lunacy from the courts?

 

Some people might say that 40+ years is too late for a compensation award for alleged underage sex abuse victims to be made. Good job the Court's "lunacy" thinks better than that eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet it's not just me that thinks this.

 

Erm my advice is don't get married in the first place if you are remotely wealthy.

 

The divorce laws in general seem iniquitous to me. How can a contract have such far reaching consequences and supersede all other contract law.?

 

Because marriage is not merely a financial contract. The complexity arises when there are children involved. Otherwise, the general principle is that the materials assets of both partners are divided at the divorce and they move on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some people might say that 40+ years is too late for a compensation award for alleged underage sex abuse victims to be made. Good job the Court's "lunacy" thinks better than that eh?

 

The two are not the same at all. One is a criminal act, the other is just foolishness. :hihi:

 

---------- Post added 11-03-2015 at 23:57 ----------

 

Because marriage is not merely a financial contract. The complexity arises when there are children involved. Otherwise, the general principle is that the materials assets of both partners are divided at the divorce and they move on.

 

Again I don't agree with how they are divided, but in this case 20 years on, is not "at the divorce" even

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. But all that the court ruling today established is that that she has the right to pursue her claim. It's significant only in that it means there is no time-limit on such claims (however unrealistic or unreasonable they are eventually deemed to be).

 

People throwing themselves around and calling her names have missed the point, somewhat.

 

Thank you for this aliceBB. I had only caught a fleeting glance of this story and couldn't believe it.

Your explanation takes the heat out of the subject and I think that what you are saying is that if she's entitled to any child support claims then she might be paid them at the rate relevant to the time he should have been paying?

 

I think people in general are thinking that she will be entitled to half of his wealth despite being divorced from him many years ago. I must admit.....I did wonder how on earth that would work. lol

 

In a way this might serve as a warning to all absent parents who refuse to pay towards their children's keep that the case will never be closed.

It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.