She Squanders Her Divorce Settlement, so He Has to Pay Her Again--30 Years Later!

GlennSacks.com ^ | 7/3/07 | Glenn Sacks

[ClearCase_guy]

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.

[darkwing104]

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.

[wideawake]

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

[Lonesome in Massachussets]

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

[Dawgreg]

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

[VOA]

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

[apocalypto]

Me too. Such injustice!

[VOA]

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.

[ctsv]

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

[Republicus2001]

Dennis the Menace?

[dfwgator]

Dennis the Menace?

That was Jay North.

[Dr.Zoidberg]

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.

[-YYZ-]

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.

[Logophile]

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.

[Sunshine Sister]

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!

[Dr.Zoidberg]

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...

[Knight of Liberty]

"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?

[LucyT]

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