Divorce Settlements - Money for nothing??

[CockneyMafia]

With the recent high profile case of Beverley Charman, and the continuing saga of the McCartney divorce, is it fair that partners who have contributed nothing financially to a marriage should recieve such obscene pay outs?

 

Mr Charman, had argued that his wife, who stayed at home and raised the couple’s two children, did not warrant an equal share of the wealth, as it had been earned with his "unique" ability.

 

Under the court order Mr Charman must pay his former wife a lump sum of £40 million to go along with £8 million of assets, including the family home in Sevenoaks, Kent, which are already in her name. I agree that in this case, Mrs Charman is entitled to a settlement - but £40 million!?

 

Even less transparent is the McCartney divorce. I'm sorry, but as far as I am concerned, the woman isnt entitled to a single penny. That isnt a mysoginistic rant either - I would say the same if the shoe were on the other foot as well.

 

What do others think?

[KenH]

If you get married then it is a partnership and it is supposed to be for life. Things are half each unless one partner has more responsibilities such as children to look after. In the event that one has less earning capacity because the other is a big earner then the lower earner should be subsidised. The reason is that many women give up work and look after the children so it isn't then fair for a man to divorce her and expect here to suddenly earn the same as him, he has kept his career and so he should subsidise her.

[CockneyMafia]

If you get married then it is a partnership and it is supposed to be for life. Things are half each unless one partner has more responsibilities such as children to look after. In the event that one has less earning capacity because the other is a big earner then the lower earner should be subsidised. The reason is that many women give up work and look after the children so it isn't then fair for a man to divorce her and expect here to suddenly earn the same as him, he has kept his career and so he should subsidise her.

 

Agreed. But in this particular case, the judge awarded this woman an OBSCENE amount of money. Her ex husband had already offered her £20m but she refused. £20m!!! Jesus. Can she honestly say that if she had never married and focused solely on her career that she would have earnt £20m-40m. I doubt it.

[KenH]

Agreed. But in this particular case, the judge awarded this woman an OBSCENE amount of money. Her ex husband had already offered her £20m but she refused. £20m!!! Jesus. Can she honestly say that if she had never married and focused solely on her career that she would have earnt £20m-40m. I doubt it.

 

Presumably he must have been able to afford both the £20M and the £40M so I find it hard to care.

[Cyclone]

I don't think it works like this, but IMO this is how it should work.

 

Any part of the estate that comes from before the marriage should not be considered firstly.

Anything that was earnt after the marriage started should be split 50/50 unless there was some prior agreement about it, in which case any pre nup that was properly prepared should be honoured.

[Agent Orange]

I don't think it works like this, but IMO this is how it should work.

 

Any part of the estate that comes from before the marriage should not be considered firstly.

Anything that was earnt after the marriage started should be split 50/50 unless there was some prior agreement about it, in which case any pre nup that was properly prepared should be honoured.

 

 

Totally agree.. seems fair!!

[willman]

why should it make any difference, if you go into business & got belly up, all your assets are considered. if you cant manage to keep a marriage together why should that be any different.

i'm not attributing blame to either party - but you either put 100% into it or nothing at all.

 

my only dispute on payouts is if the wife commits adultery.imho experience if things are bad in a relationship you jump ship, you dont play around.

[willman]

I don't think it works like this, but IMO this is how it should work.

 

Any part of the estate that comes from before the marriage should not be considered firstly.

Anything that was earnt after the marriage started should be split 50/50 unless there was some prior agreement about it, in which case any pre nup that was properly prepared should be honoured.

 

if the guy is already in business how can you ascertain the growth of his income without considering the pre marriage assets.?

if the guy spends all the time building his empire, how can you evaluate what he would or wouldn't have achieved if someone wasn't at home bringing up his children full time.(i don't think for one minute that someone with that money didnt have a nanny etc either)

[Cyclone]

marriage is just a form of social contract, and a divorce (court) is supposed to see a fair split of assets when the contract is disolved.

 

If one party made no contribution to part of the assets being considered (ie they came from before the marriage) then why should they have any claim on them when the marriage is dissolved?

[willman]

wasnt one of them already an affluent horse trainer who gave it up to rear a family?

why were family homes in the wifes name,? perhaps to a avoid tax on the husbands assets, she may not have been earning the money but she was contributing to the family wealth.