hows this for a money grabbing bitch
Posted by mercurior
|
hows this for a money grabbing bitch June 28, 2007 | Registered: 19 years ago Posts: 4,402 |
SHE LEFT HIM,
30 years after her divorce, ex wins £200,000 more
Last updated at 01:20am on 28th June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=464722&in_page_id=1770
A millionaire was ordered to pay his adulterous wife more than £200,000 - nearly 30 years after they were divorced.
Builder Dennis North's wife Jean left him and their three children for another man in 1977.
They divorced the following year and in 1981 they reached a settlement which saw him give her their house and the income from rents on other properties.
But now Mrs North, who has never worked, has fallen on hard times after losing money in a series of bad investments.
Mr North, 70, has been ordered by a court to hand her another £202,000.
The order follows a series of big-money divorce cases which have swung the law against husbands and resulted in huge payments to ex-wives even after short childless marriages.
The North case now threatens to make husbands pay large sums even decades after a split.
Three Appeal Court judges had heard Mr North's lawyers call for the payment to be stopped.
His barrister, Philip Moor QC, said 61-year-old Mrs North was trying to get "a second bite at the cherry".
He added: "The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives.
"The changes in financial positions of the parties since 1981 and the differential between them that has arisen over the years cannot be relevant."
The court heard that Mrs North moved to Australia in 1999 and lost much of her money in "unfortunate" investments said to have been based on bad advice.
Mr Moor said it had been her decision to sell up and move to one of the most desirable and expensive areas of Sydney and live beyond her means in a country where she was not entitled to benefits.
If she had stayed in England she would have been comfortably off for the rest of her life.
Her ex-husband, by contrast, has prospered. Mr North, who lives in a six-bedroom stone house on the edge of the Peak District, has now retired with a fortune estimated at between £5million and £11million.
The award against him stems from part of the divorce settlement which involved "nominal" maintenance payments.
Existing law says that whenever one party in a divorce is paying maintenance, either one has the right to ask a court to replace it with a "clean break" lump sum.
Mrs North, who now lives in Leeds, was awarded the £202,000 by a district judge last year. The ruling was later upheld in the High Court.
Mr Moor said the order "penalised those who behave responsibly".
But Deborah Bangay, QC, for Mrs North, said: "This was not a second bite at the cherry but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of the former husband."
She said it was not Mrs North's fault that her investments had gone wrong. The district judge's award had been at the "bottom end of the spectrum".
The judges, Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, reserved their judgment.
Mr North, who has remarried and has two children with his second wife, refused to comment afterwards.
But divorce lawyers said Mrs North's settlement stretched existing law to breaking point.
Caroline Wright of Boodle Hatfield said: "Legal principles say that if maintenance is being paid either party can ask for a lump sum. But these are extreme circumstances."
Julian Lipson of Withers said: "The law is supposed to stop people having a second bite at the cherry. I think the husband has a strong case."
Wives who have benefited from huge recent divorce settlements include Beverley Charman, awarded £48million of her husband's fortune in May, and Melissa Miller, who won £5million of her husband's £30million wealth even though her marriage lasted only three years and there were no children.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone
Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii
Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.â€
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein
30 years after her divorce, ex wins £200,000 more
Last updated at 01:20am on 28th June 2007
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=464722&in_page_id=1770
A millionaire was ordered to pay his adulterous wife more than £200,000 - nearly 30 years after they were divorced.
Builder Dennis North's wife Jean left him and their three children for another man in 1977.
They divorced the following year and in 1981 they reached a settlement which saw him give her their house and the income from rents on other properties.
But now Mrs North, who has never worked, has fallen on hard times after losing money in a series of bad investments.
Mr North, 70, has been ordered by a court to hand her another £202,000.
The order follows a series of big-money divorce cases which have swung the law against husbands and resulted in huge payments to ex-wives even after short childless marriages.
The North case now threatens to make husbands pay large sums even decades after a split.
Three Appeal Court judges had heard Mr North's lawyers call for the payment to be stopped.
His barrister, Philip Moor QC, said 61-year-old Mrs North was trying to get "a second bite at the cherry".
He added: "The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives.
"The changes in financial positions of the parties since 1981 and the differential between them that has arisen over the years cannot be relevant."
The court heard that Mrs North moved to Australia in 1999 and lost much of her money in "unfortunate" investments said to have been based on bad advice.
Mr Moor said it had been her decision to sell up and move to one of the most desirable and expensive areas of Sydney and live beyond her means in a country where she was not entitled to benefits.
If she had stayed in England she would have been comfortably off for the rest of her life.
Her ex-husband, by contrast, has prospered. Mr North, who lives in a six-bedroom stone house on the edge of the Peak District, has now retired with a fortune estimated at between £5million and £11million.
The award against him stems from part of the divorce settlement which involved "nominal" maintenance payments.
Existing law says that whenever one party in a divorce is paying maintenance, either one has the right to ask a court to replace it with a "clean break" lump sum.
Mrs North, who now lives in Leeds, was awarded the £202,000 by a district judge last year. The ruling was later upheld in the High Court.
Mr Moor said the order "penalised those who behave responsibly".
But Deborah Bangay, QC, for Mrs North, said: "This was not a second bite at the cherry but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of the former husband."
She said it was not Mrs North's fault that her investments had gone wrong. The district judge's award had been at the "bottom end of the spectrum".
The judges, Lord Justice Thorpe, Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, reserved their judgment.
Mr North, who has remarried and has two children with his second wife, refused to comment afterwards.
But divorce lawyers said Mrs North's settlement stretched existing law to breaking point.
Caroline Wright of Boodle Hatfield said: "Legal principles say that if maintenance is being paid either party can ask for a lump sum. But these are extreme circumstances."
Julian Lipson of Withers said: "The law is supposed to stop people having a second bite at the cherry. I think the husband has a strong case."
Wives who have benefited from huge recent divorce settlements include Beverley Charman, awarded £48million of her husband's fortune in May, and Melissa Miller, who won £5million of her husband's £30million wealth even though her marriage lasted only three years and there were no children.
*********************************************************************************************************************************
I just post the stories, for interest.. for everyone
Lord, what fools these mortals be!
- A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Act III, Scene ii
Voltaire said: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
H.L.Mencken wrote:"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.â€
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. Albert Einstein
|
Re: hows this for a money grabbing bitch June 28, 2007 | Registered: 17 years ago Posts: 1,790 |
This is why I am so anti-marriage. I could see the need for marriage for women in an era when they had no rights or any other options once they came of age and their parents no longer wanted them at home. Before women could work and apply for credit in their name, spousal support was necessary if the man just left his wife for a Barbie doll. Now, I feel marriage is insulting to women and just plain foolish for men. A woman can live with a man if she loves him but does not need to be tethered by marriage as she can take care of herself. Demanding money during a divorce for being a man's wife states that women are nothing more than whores and marriage is just a way to rent a woman's vagina.
Going to an escort service for a higher-class hooker for a night out and sex is cheaper for most men than to marry. Even dating is such a fucking game where the woman holds out on when to fuck so she can get the man interested in marriage. Men spend money on women when they on a date hoping for action. Just call an escort service. It is easier on the guys and they are not guilted into calling two days later. Re: settlements, a lot of these cunts do lose the money because it is easy to just spend...spend...spend when the hos do not actually work for the money. How is it the ex-husband's fault that the ex-ho lost her $$$ on shit investments????
I would love to be a judge in divorce court. I would tell these women to go out and get a fucking JOB and that marriage was not an entitlement to live as they got "accustomed" when they got tired of their husbands. As for sprog support, the men can get a lowered amount if the women do not produce receipts or use child support payments as "income" so she can get a car loan for a fancy auto. I would be one hell of a bitch on the bench.
Going to an escort service for a higher-class hooker for a night out and sex is cheaper for most men than to marry. Even dating is such a fucking game where the woman holds out on when to fuck so she can get the man interested in marriage. Men spend money on women when they on a date hoping for action. Just call an escort service. It is easier on the guys and they are not guilted into calling two days later. Re: settlements, a lot of these cunts do lose the money because it is easy to just spend...spend...spend when the hos do not actually work for the money. How is it the ex-husband's fault that the ex-ho lost her $$$ on shit investments????
I would love to be a judge in divorce court. I would tell these women to go out and get a fucking JOB and that marriage was not an entitlement to live as they got "accustomed" when they got tired of their husbands. As for sprog support, the men can get a lowered amount if the women do not produce receipts or use child support payments as "income" so she can get a car loan for a fancy auto. I would be one hell of a bitch on the bench.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.