Mother wins right to more than half of ex-husband’s £500,000 crash compensation payout as ‘her needs are greater’

In the US, there is a concept that property received before a marriage is "separate property," and therefore is not to be divided at a time of divorce. I believe that in England, the same is true, since our law is based on English law. Nonetheless, this case shows that there is no such concept anymore. It matters not at all that this guy has special needs, that he has to sell his house which is outfitted especially to accommodate his disability. What matters is that he has to pay. And the woman wants more money. She is not a hardship case; she simply wants more money. Not only half of this guy's assets, more than half of his assets. How many cases like this is it going to take before men appreciate marriage, as we have known it, is a very dangerous venture, and that if they enter a marriage, they become economic slaves. This case speaks loudly for never getting married, at least in England. You, as a man, have no legal rights. None.

Indeed. Unless she works, contributes 50%, actually apologizes when she messes up in the relationship, reciprocates and appreciates your kind gestures, gets as upset as you about men's issues, doesn't make misandric comments, and exhibits many clear signs that she couldn't love anybody else, you should not marry her! Even if u live in England and she meets this criteria, still don't marry her!

I must say I'm really disgusted that it's actually possible for a woman to get more than half of money she did not EARN in any way, which was awarded to her ex-husband with special needs years before he even met her! What a greedy bitch!

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

"if she remarries a partner who can support her" Is she an enfant? Can she not support herself?

Who's the one who disabled here? Who deserves the support here? The man who actually is disabled, or the able-bodied 21st century woman living in western society with every door of opportunity open for her and then some (pay incentives, quotas,)?

How could it reach this point where a court would force a disabled man to sell his handicap accomodated house to support an able-bodied woman who deserves none of the compensation he got for his own suffering? It's grotesque enough when a modern day woman, who can get any job a man can and earn as much as him if not more, gets over half of anything she didn't earn, nevermind a situation like this where an amputee's compensation for his worries and physcial problems are being more than half taken away from him and handed over to a woman who had no part in the suffering or pain experienced by this man.

What kind of a heartless and monstrous asshole do you have to be to take over half of the money that was given as compensation to a disabled person,esp knowing that would mean he has to leave his home? Better yet, what kind of a heartless and monstrous legal system allows this? This money grubbing piece of crap woman should make her own dough and not have to wait till she can find a man to take care of her enfantile ass until she give back some of his money he got due to his own suffering. And now he has to suffer even more. How are we supposed to have faith in justice and law when courts award women like this?

If the court route has been exhausted for him, he should protest it on the streets, go on a hungers strike, whatever, just try something, don't let this slip. But who knows, maybe he's one of those medieval thinking chivalric drones that masochistically thinks it a-ok to let a woman walk all over him as if that perverted and twisted way of thinking was ever functional or true.

I can't believe there are so many people that still think it's somehow a ridculous notion to have a men's right movement (or pretend that they havn't heard of it at all or don't know what it is by putting it safely in quotations; you've seen it) when things like this happen routinely, and this isn't even near the worst of it.

However down you might feel about these things, whatever you do, don't give up the fight. We got simple truth, fairness, and morality on our side, and, excepting if society completely collapses into totalitarionism or tryanny, those things should eventually prevail with enough dedication and perseverance.

Not only do we got truth, morality, and fairness on our side, we got the people. Check out the comment section there. People are overwhelmingly against this. It makes me wonder why change to this divorce court system is happening so slowly...

is a piece of sh*t!

It is a disgrace to jurisprudence.
Canada and the US are not far behind in this regard.

Certainly it does not seem fair. I would think a better scenario would be him having custody of the kids with her paying child support to him.

Some details that were mentioned in other articles was that he owns a second home that is rented-out and produces income, he also receives a monthly check from the government (or something like that), and she did contribute $30,000 to the purchase of the home they lived in. Also she is ordered to give back $95,000 when the kids turn 18. And I don't believe the court is ordering him to sell his home, but he is suggesting selling it as his plan to meet this obligation.

If I understand correctly this is a one time payment to her to cover the cost of raising the kids and he is not ordered to pay monthly support and there is no specific spousal support, but this payment is to be used to house her and the kids. The article mentioned something about a "clean break" but I am not sure who initiated this as it does not sound like a good thing for him. However, I am familiar with fathers that have large pay-outs and blow it all before their children turn 18 with no other income potential and are left unable to fulfil their child support obligations (my ex falls into this category). .

If you deduct the $30,000 that she contributed to the home ($285000 - $30000 = $255000) and divide that by 168 months until the children turn 18, that equates to $1517 per month in child support for two kids. And she still has to return $95,000 at the end.

Some things I would like to know is if he sought sole custody of the children? When they were an intact family what income or money was used to support the children? What is his financial situation and monthly income (and hers) as other articles indicate he has other income and investments - but she should have income or be expected to work as well. And what caused the break up?

I hope this gets worked out to a fair solution.

PS- Given his disability, I am not sure why they chose artificial insemination to have two children, unless they had enough income potential to cover the expenses of children for at least 18 years.

FYI

Above I mention what the payout equates to if it were monthly child support....

$1517 British Pound = $2492 US dollars

And the $95000 British pounds she has to pay back = $156000 US dollars.

Does seem like a lot for monthly child support. As I assume he has an average or below average income, or maybe not as I have no idea what his income or assets are.

His second home is the one I imagine he got for himself when the divorce courts kicked him out of the old one he was living in with his ex-wife. And so what if he produces more income by renting out a room or something (more than likely because he simply needs whatever extra income he can get). Whatever piddly little amount he makes from that should be his with some going to his children (nevermind his callous ex-wife). The check from the government each month would also be more than likely not very much.

Yeah I guess some fathers might blow such payouts, probably on various ways to try and attract a mate because that's what it most often takes. But what's your point here? And how often do you think the reverse is true? How much child support do ex-wives blow on themselves? I wonder how much this woman will blow this payout on herself and not the kids before they're 18. She's already demonstrated how cold she is to the father of her children. This isn't someone I would trust too much given the information at hand.

What's ignored here is that this money is HIS compensation for a traumatic event that he alone went through which caused loss of limb, HIS limb. She's greedy and can't be satisfied with regular spousal and child support payments from him, so she has to steal compensation from a disabled man. And how does the judge decree that it should be more than half--why should it even be half? Personally, I think a judge who even ridiculously declares that a disabled bodied person is less in need of his own reparation than an able-bodied person who didn't even share in the experience should be a judge who's thrown the fuck out. Pronto. Perhaps this judge's severely flawed logic alone is reason for a mistrial.

And that's what really bothers me, how the idiot judge mentioned it's for her support too, not just the children's. A disabled person giving an able-bodied person, who can work and damn well support herself, a part of the disabled person's own reparations should be obvious to anyone not to be right. Ultimately the guilty party here is the "justice" system that allows this to happen in the first place, and gives incentives to more greedy and callous people to take money from others who are already at a disadvantage. Bottom line is someone's recompense for a traumatic and bodily damaging experience he went through on his own should be his and no one else's. However, I do believe that a part of that should go to the children (I don't know if it should be half or what, and I don't see how this is properly determined), but if only there was some way to ensure that it would ONLY be spent on the children, not on his heartless ex-wife.

All I want is the facts, and I don't have them all and neither does anyone else at this site. In another article it mentions that he took his insurance pay-out and purchased two properties. One to live in and the other to rent and produce income. I have no idea if these are modest or extravagant properties, but I am under the impression that he spent the majority of the $500,000 ($822,000 US dollars) on these properties. However, if the properties were purchased several years after he received his settlement, there may have only been a fraction left - we don't know.

I realize that he received his insurance pay-out before he met her, but I am not sure when he purchased the two properties (if they were before marriage or during marriage) This doesn't change my opinion as to whether she is entitled to any or not given the circumstances, but it might raise a legal hurdle. I am only going by typical US laws, but money received before marriage, like his insurance pay-out, would not be community property; but property purchased while married is.

Like I said, I'm not sure of the timing, but he could have protected himself better by a pre-nup or post-nup that spelled out exactly what money was used to purchase and maintain those properties especially if they were purchased while married. Once pre-marital money is mixed into a joint account with post-marital "community" money it can be difficult to sort out, and this is where most disputes arise. He might be claiming that it was all his insurance pay-out money used to purchase these properties, and she might be claiming that her money was used as well, especially if she worked and deposited her paychecks into the same account.

Some other factors might include wether the properties were paid in full or if they had a monthly mortgage payments that was paid from a joint checking account (that muddys things up). And if the properties have increased in value since being purchased then they both might be entitled to the increased equity, especially since she contributed to the down payment and maintained the property.

I read one comment that indicated that he refused to give her monthly child support after they split which is why the judge orderred a lump sum settlement - so they would have a clean break. However you indicate they she is the one that initiated this out of greed. I am unsure, as I have not seen it stated anywhere.

I have not seen any indication that he was ordered to pay spousal support, other than reference to this money to be used for 'her and the children's needs' for housing. I am somewhat unclear, but I believe this is the only thing that might be interpreted as spousal support.

He did decide to have children, and those children need to be cared for. I am all for a fair settlement, and I already indicated it does not seem fair on the surface. But it is hard to determine how unfair it is without facts and details.

While married they owned and afforded two homes. Now divorced and having two kids, they will each own and afford one home apiece, and she will need to pay him back $95,000 ($156,000 US Dollars) when the kids turn 18. She will have a lien on her house to make sure of it (I believe that is what is meant by "charge order").

It has been reported that Mr. Mansfield already has a new wife and child.

...And by the way, I don't know any single mothers that have so much money left over they spend it on themselves. The majority of divorced mothers I know don't receive any child support even though they are supposed to.

What you are discussing is what should have (and may have) happened at divorce. It should have been looked at what the total marital assets were at the time of divorce. the problem is, that $500,000 disabilities payout, if put into those houses, would be considered part of those marital assets, and not as a separate $500,000. My concern is (and you are right, we don't have all the details), is that she is trying to double dip. That she got a portion of the marital assets upon divorce (or choose to waive her right to it) and has now decided to come back and go after that $500,000, despite it being part of the marital assets she already got a part of or waived. Also, if he has spent much of that $500,000, say $200,000 on each house (I have no idea of real estate costs in UK, just using an example), and so only has $400,000 in assets, she is getting 3/4 of the assets by going after the payout rather then the assets.

The fact is, she has no right to the $500,000 payout, what she does have a right to are the marital assets at the time of divorce (which might include the assets purchased with, or the remaining balance of, that payout), and that would/should have already been dealt with during the divorce.

"He did decide to have children,"

Did he? Are you absolutely sure he had any say in it whatsoever? And please don't give me the "if he didn't want children, he should have kept it in his pants" BS.

Secondly, having a child does not mean you must give up your life in order to provide for them. You need to make sacrifices, but it does neither you nor your child any good to be put out on the street, and that appears to be what's happening, as he needs to sell his home to come up with the money to pay this woman (and it is the woman getting paid, not the kids. They could live with dad and mom could get a job if "the best interests of the children" were the real concern).

If that is indeed correct and she is getting more than her fair share then I will be outraged. I also think his disabilities, future care and his earning potential compared to her's need to be considered.

However, I don't see how you can assume what share of assets she is getting unless you know the total equity and the whole realm of the situation. If the properties have increased in value and therefore have more equity then she may be getting 1/2 or 1/3 or whatever (and she also has to give a chunk back when the kids turn 18). We also don't know how much she contributed to these properties as it has been mentioned that she did contribute financially to them. I also am not aware of her "double dipping". I am under the impression that this dispute IS the divorce/child support settlement. We also don't know if he wants full custody of the children. Not all men do, especially when they have a new family (another article mentioned he has a new wife and child (BTW - his children with his ex-wife were conceived artificially - so he did make a choice to have them).

And I am not sure if she works or not. She is a college grad and she did have $30000 ($49000 US) of her own money to put towards the properties, so I think it is likely she has a career.

I don't think this case is so cut and dry as some of you guys think. There are alot of unknown factors. He is the one going to the media and claiming the equity in these properties represent his insurance settlement. But really he already received and spent his insurance settlement. Now we are trying to determine if the equity in these properties is marital property or not.