Posted on 06/30/2007 10:21:56 PM PDT by Lorianne
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.
Feathers.
Rail.
Repeat as necessary.
L
And some women wonder why men are shy about getting married...
“But Mrs North’s counsel, Deborah Bangay QC, said it was not her client’s fault that her investments had gone wrong “
Whose fault WAS it?? Gods??
She was set for life!!
Make her a dumpster diver......greed got the best of her!!
in-(expletive deleted)-sane.
Wow. This has to be made up. Please, someone tell me it’s made up.
A settlement was made, it’s done, she’s done, and the appeals court should chide the judge who awarded more.
ROTFLMAO!!
What a moron [the judges].
Let me get this straight - SHE stepped out on her husband. They divorced. He set HER up in another home. SHE married “the other man”. SHE runs off to Oz and blows her entire net worth. and now SHE is tapping the ex-husband for more??
Meanwhile ex-wives throughout England will proceed to spend recklessly as they may now tap their ex-husbands for an infinite amount of financing.
Me, too.
And you just KNOW that the librat courts will use this for some kind of half-assed, “prior case,” for similar situations here.
I have to pay three years of alimony after she destroyed the marriage with her infidelity.
I ought to go back to court and cancel this.
The judge that ordered that could be on our 9th circuit.
Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life,
“Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life,”
Yes. And it wasn’t described as “alimony”. She must be one high maintenance bird.
Coming soon to ABC ... Desperate Ex-Housewives
Prenup, prenup, prenup......
What kind of half baked morons do they have wearing the wig over in the UK? And are they still putting Gin in the pitchers on the bench?
If she came back after even more money now, I'd have to buy some more ammo.
I don't even know what she looks like anymore. She's probably got a new broom by now, though .................... FRegards
Right - check out www.nomarriage.com for more details. The website has an article from the 1950’s on the duties of the housewife - such as the wife’s duty to have dinner on the table when the husband returns from work, be dressed up to meet him at the door, and remember he is tired from working to support you so be appreciative . . . . That’s all gone now.
Nowadays, it seems that men are financial slaves for women who cheated on them and spent their divorce settlement on high living in Australia? Unbelievable.
She should quietly suffer an “accident”.
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.