Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

She Squanders Her Divorce Settlement, so He Has to Pay Her Again--30 Years Later!
GlennSacks.com ^ | 7/3/07 | Glenn Sacks

Posted on 07/03/2007 9:52:05 AM PDT by PercivalWalks

Several of you sent me this amazing story--Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce. [Read it in full here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/28/ndivorce128.xml] Get this:

Dennis North gets married and has three kids. His wife cheats on him and they get divorced. Dennis buys her a house and investments as part of the divorce settlement, and raises the three kids himself. Later, he pays her more money, even though she refuses to work. She squanders the money he gave her, and now, 30 years later, guess what? He has to pay her all over again because she's "fallen on hard times." Nice.

Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce U.K. Telegraph, 6/28/07

A wealthy retired builder was ordered to pay more money to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago after a judge heard she had "fallen on hard times," the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

Dennis North, 70, was divorced from his first wife Jean, 61, in 1978 - a year after finding out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with.

In 1981, he made a financial settlement with the woman he married in 1964, buying her a house and investments.

Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life, the judges were told.

But in 1999, she sold up and moved to Australia where she saw her capital dwindle because of bad investments and what the court was told was a lifestyle beyond her means.

A district judge awarded her a lump sum of £202,000 in April last year despite agreeing that Mrs North's money troubles had nothing to do with her former husband and he had no further responsibility towards her.

Since his divorce from his first wife, Mr. North had prospered and his wealth is now estimated at between £5 million and £11 million, the court was told.

Mr. North, who was left to bring up the three children of the marriage and has two children by his second wife, wants the Court of Appeal to quash the award.

Philip Moor QC, representing him, told the panel of judges headed by Lord Justice Thorpe that Mrs North had made no attempt to find a job since 1977, when she was 32.

When she sold all her assets and emigrated, she chose to live in an expensive part of Sydney, he said.

If she had stayed in the North of England she would have been comfortably off for the rest of her life.

"The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives," he told the three judges.

Mr. Moor told Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice May and Mr. Justice Bennett, that it was not his client's fault that his first wife "has fallen on hard times and she cannot now go back for a second bite of the cherry."

But Mrs. North's counsel, Deborah Bangay QC, said it was not her client's fault that her investments had gone wrong and the District Judge took account of her ex-husband's wealth and the fact that she needed additional support when he gave her an award at the "bottom end of the spectrum".

She added: "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 her former husband. It was an extraordinarily modest award set against his wealth."

The court reserved its judgment to a date to be fixed.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; Society
KEYWORDS: childcustody; dennisnorth; divorce; fathersrights; judicialactivism; malebashing; savethemales; sexism
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

1 posted on 07/03/2007 9:52:07 AM PDT by PercivalWalks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
it was not her client's fault that her investments had gone wrong

If I were her, I would take the second settlement, fly to Monaco, play roulette until it was all gone, and then go back to the Court for a third helping.

Hey, stuff happens, it's not your fault, your entitled to more.

2 posted on 07/03/2007 9:59:30 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Progressives like to keep doing the things that didn't work in the past.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
Like American Courts, the British courts now protects stupid people...It would be nice if they can protect the rest of us from stupid people.


3 posted on 07/03/2007 10:00:07 AM PDT by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

I marvel at this women’s utter cravenness and complete lack of personal dignity.


4 posted on 07/03/2007 10:01:07 AM PDT by wideawake ("Pearl Harbor is America's fault, right, Mommy?" Ron Paul, age 6, 12/7/1941)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

That’s the difference between marriage and divorce. Divorce is a lifelong commitment.


5 posted on 07/03/2007 10:03:56 AM PDT by Lonesome in Massachussets (I never consented to live in the Camp of the Saints.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

I marvel that any court or judge would even let something this outrageouse ever get in the front door! :(


6 posted on 07/03/2007 10:06:32 AM PDT by Dawgreg (Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

This story should be Exhibit A under “Why do fewer people get married?”


7 posted on 07/03/2007 10:09:58 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dawgreg

Me too. Such injustice!


8 posted on 07/03/2007 10:14:05 AM PDT by apocalypto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Dawgreg
I marvel that any court or judge would even let something this
outrageouse ever get in the front door! :(


We already have something like that in California.
IIRC, rich-guy Kirk Krikorian was forced to pay the legal fees
when an ex-girlfriend took him to court to ask for a incredible
increase to the generous support Krikorian was already voluntarily giving
her and her daughter.

I'm no lawyer...but if I understand correctly...
Some sort of California state statute provides that when there's
a major economic disparity between a plaintiff and respondent,
the respondent can be compelled to part with $$$ to pay the plaintiff's
legal fees.
Taken to it's logical end, I suppose you could have a millionaire
getting his/her legal fees paid by the billionaire they are suing!!!

It was rumored that Krikorian was actually not even the biological
father of the gal's daughter. But that he assented to paternity
partly because he like the "old guy still has the stuff" stories
and he's a decent fellow.
9 posted on 07/03/2007 10:16:43 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Just more government application of the communist manifesto:

From each according to his ability
To each according to his need.

Soon we will live in glorious utopia /s


10 posted on 07/03/2007 11:03:16 AM PDT by ctsv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

Dennis the Menace?


11 posted on 07/03/2007 11:04:11 AM PDT by Republicus2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Republicus2001
Dennis the Menace?

That was Jay North.

12 posted on 07/03/2007 12:15:00 PM PDT by dfwgator (The University of Florida - Still Championship U)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: PercivalWalks
Four words, Legally Binding Prenuptial Agreement.

Anyone who marries without one is just begging to be ravaged by the legal system after the marriage dies.

14 posted on 07/03/2007 12:15:45 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg

With courts and legal “thinking” like this, does it even matter what kind of pre-nup you might have? A lawyer will just argue, and some brain-dead judge agree, that the situation is “unfair” (by what standard, I don’t know) and must be rectified. At least that’s what I would expect judging by the utterly ridiculous arguments made, and decisions rendered, in courts today.


15 posted on 07/03/2007 12:23:57 PM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks
A district judge awarded her a lump sum of £202,000 in April last year despite agreeing that Mrs North's money troubles had nothing to do with her former husband and he had no further responsibility towards her.

Amazing.

16 posted on 07/03/2007 12:42:15 PM PDT by Logophile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PercivalWalks

What does his wealth have to do with anything? She hasn’t worked a day in her life. Why can’t she expect to take care of her needs at this late point in time. I can’t stand people who will not take responsibility for themselves!


17 posted on 07/03/2007 12:45:24 PM PDT by Sunshine Sister
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-
True, there is a great deal of abuse in the courts and it’s ladled generously over any man who is getting a divorce, but a prenup couldn’t hurt.

I’m happily divorced and plan to stay that way unless I go insane again so I might not be the best source of guidance...

18 posted on 07/03/2007 12:46:30 PM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (Mohammedanism - Bringing you only the best of the 6th century for fourteen hundred years.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg
"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 her former husband. It was an extraordinarily modest award set against his wealth."
Who is John Galt?
19 posted on 07/03/2007 12:55:44 PM PDT by Knight of Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dr.Zoidberg; PercivalWalks

“Love: A temporary insanity curable by marriage.” - Ambrose Bierce


20 posted on 07/03/2007 12:57:02 PM PDT by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-33 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson