Skip to comments.
Decades after divorce, U.K. millionaire faces claim from ex-wife
Winnipeg Sun ^
| 03/11/2015
| Estelle Shirbon
Posted on 03/11/2015 7:07:55 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: E. Pluribus Unum
Dang, it’s like marriage is until death do they part or something.
21
posted on
03/11/2015 9:01:41 AM PDT
by
Wolfie
To: CurlyDave
22
posted on
03/11/2015 9:23:57 AM PDT
by
WayneS
(Barack Obama makes Neville Chamberlin look like George Patton.)
To: Albion Wilde
Life is tough. Get a helmet.
23
posted on
03/11/2015 10:17:42 AM PDT
by
Lurker
(Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
To: submarinerswife
Thank you, I hoped somebody would see the merits of the idea.
CC
24
posted on
03/11/2015 10:17:50 AM PDT
by
Celtic Conservative
(Sufficient unto the day are the troubles therof)
To: Calpublican
That’s what I thought too.
To: yldstrk
well guess what? Child support never dies...........
Who told you that? Most states in the US end child support at 18, unless the kid is still in high school. In few cases, they'll extend it to 21.
But this case is in the UK, so I'm not too sure, they're quite a bit more of a nanny-society than we are. However, the court initially threw out the case saying it's way too late, but the high court sent it back on appeal saying they should consider it a bit more fully.
To: ken in texas
they had one child at the time of their breakup. She may have ended up with four, but the other three have a different daddy.That is different, indeed.
27
posted on
03/11/2015 11:34:11 AM PDT
by
Albion Wilde
(The greatest danger facing our world: the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.-Netanyahu)
To: E. Pluribus Unum
My suspicion the reason the court is ruling the way it is, is because she’s been living on state bennies for a long time. If he is forced to start paying for her, that should cut down on how much the state is paying her. Just a way to soak some rich guy and do a little “redistributing.”
28
posted on
03/11/2015 11:40:20 AM PDT
by
Hoffer Rand
(Bear His image. Bring His message. Be the Church.)
To: Svartalfiar
That’s not what I mean. If he never paid any, he owes 18 years of it.
29
posted on
03/11/2015 11:53:47 AM PDT
by
yldstrk
To: yldstrk
Dear yldstrk,
If he was poor for those 18 years as the child grew up, he owes the child little or nothing. It appears that he was poor for most, perhaps all of that period. You can't get blood out of a rock, nor should you try.
What happened subsequent to those 18 years is beyond the claims of the evil ex-wife, and even beyond the claims of his son.
sitetest
30
posted on
03/11/2015 4:40:17 PM PDT
by
sitetest
(If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
To: yldstrk
Thats not what I mean. If he never paid any, he owes 18 years of it.
No, he doesn't. As part of their breakup/divorce, the court ruled that he didn't owe any child support as he was just as broke at the mom was. He then spent a decade as a wandering hippy, and didn't start actually making any money until the kid was in his mid-late teens. The mom never applied for a Child Support re-evaluation, and didn't even file this case until 2011, when the "kid" was around 30!
The initial court just threw the case out, but on appeal a higher court said they should re-evaluate if the case has any merit. I can't see this going for the mom's way, and definitely not for £1.9M, not even close.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson