UK: Divorcee wins £4.3m of ex-husband's inheritance despite judge saying 'she did not work for it'

Submitted by Broadsword on Sat, 2011-08-13 16:07

Article here. Excerpt:

'A divorcee was awarded £4.3million of her ex-husband's inherited fortune, despite a judge conceding that she had not worked for it.
...
Seeking a lump sum of £6million, on top of £1million that is already in her name, the wife's lawyers said she needed £1.5million to buy and furnish an 'appropriate' new home for herself, along with enough cash to give her an income of over £130,000-a-year.
...
The wife's lawyers argued the 'sharing principle' should be applied to the case, entitling her to a stake in her husband's inherited wealth. But the husband said that would be an 'invasion' of a fortune he owed to his father and which was not built up during the marriage. Mr Justice Moylan said the husband's wealth was 'non-matrimonial' and it was 'fair' to base the wife's award on a 'generous assessment' of her financial needs.

She was awarded a lump sum of £3.3million, on top of the £1million of assets already in her name.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

This one actually doesn't bother me that much (aside from the lack of fault in divorce). They were married 25 years and the judge didn't award her half just for being the wife (which is itself, groundbreaking). I think her take was extremely generous (1/4 of his annual income), but not out of the realm of reasonable. IMHO

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Kratch on Sat, 2011-08-13 19:55

Notice that the court does not "focus on the needs of the man," it only focuses on the "needs of the woman." Men, if you have any doubt whatsoever about how very ill-advised it is to get married, this type of case (and there are many others) should convince you that the courts don't give a shit about you or your welfare. They will extract money from you for the benefit of women, any way they can do it. Never mind that the wife did nothing for it, that customarily assets received before the marriage are not split between a divorcing couple, this is another case where the court just hands over your money to women. Men, we are being farmed, like we are cattle. We exist to provide for women, and the courts enforce this. We are treated as little more than cattle. We really need to get that.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by redwoodwriter on Sat, 2011-08-13 22:38

Just why would any man financially secure ever get married in Britain with their misandry on steroids divorce laws?

We keep reading the same old sorry story again and again from once Great Britain.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Luek on Sun, 2011-08-14 22:57