Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

On the bright side, she did ask for £8,000,000. So she didn't outright win.

Still a bloody joke though seeing as she walked out on him.

Mr Mystery wrote:On the bright side, she did ask for £8,000,000. So she didn't outright win.

Still a bloody joke though seeing as she walked out on him.

meh,

Jokes on him for not asking the right questions 10 years ago or hiring a good solicitor.

Mr Mystery wrote:On the bright side, she did ask for £8,000,000. So she didn't outright win.

Still a bloody joke though seeing as she walked out on him.

You don't know why she walked out. He could have been an absolute dick.

Frazzled wrote:

Mr Mystery wrote:On the bright side, she did ask for £8,000,000. So she didn't outright win.

Still a bloody joke though seeing as she walked out on him.

You don't know why she walked out. He could have been an absolute dick.

He did offer money before she tried to sue him. Then again, $1 million out of these winnings is paltry enough. I wonder how much he planned to give to the child?

Sanctjud wrote:Lesson:
Gotta tie up loose ends.

Who cares?

If I had £50 mil and an ex-wife wanting £8 mil, I would be happy to get rid of her for £2 mil.

"Here's a cheque, now feth off, I'm going to the Bahamas tomorrow".

I would make it back in interest in six months anyway. Why piss around in court?

Despite most laypeople's view of the law, there really aren't very many "gotcha" moments in the law. At least in the US, most courts are concerned with not being ridiculous.

That said, one of the world's biggest inescapable gotcha's is marriage. Nobody is "sort of" married. You is or you ain't.

In this case, if he was still married, or had a crappy divorce decree, he's on the hook.

Reading the sun article, apparently in the UK divorce decrees aren't final unless they say they are. Meaning if circumstances change one party can ask for more cash. Now, it'd be hard for this guy to claim he can't afford it, and would likely run up pretty huge legal bills even if he won.

It's also important to note that she didn't "win." They settled. Based on the story, it's likely that he paid her off to avoid the emotional battle of a lengthy law suit. It's also possible the agreement includes more visitation rights with their daughter.

Also, the guy in question voluntarily upped his maintenance, pre-mindless suing to £2,000 a month....


Greedy cow.

Was this decided by a jury? If so, jury's are notorious for siding with the Divorced Female of any divorced couples. Even when they are the the cheater. Sad day.

Sanctjud wrote:Lesson:
Gotta tie up loose ends.

And throw them in the river.

This is kindda funny. I bought a mobile home off a guy years ago that his ex wife must be related to. His wife left him long ago, and after she had left him, he started a contractors company, that did VERY well. So when she catches wind of his new found awesomeness, sues him for pretty much everything he owned. It took him about a year to get back no his feet with his company to be able to get OUT of the mobile home he sold me. He was rather upset to put it mildly.

BUT at least he left me all the appliances and a brand new lawn mower, because he didnt need them in the flashy place he was moving to


Women can be the destroyers of worlds

I've never understood why cases like that work, and ones where the husbands sue successful women don't.

Stormrider wrote:Was this decided by a jury? If so, jury's are notorious for siding with the Divorced Female of any divorced couples. Even when they are the the cheater. Sad day.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not how it works.

Bookwrack wrote:

Stormrider wrote:Was this decided by a jury? If so, jury's are notorious for siding with the Divorced Female of any divorced couples. Even when they are the the cheater. Sad day.

Frazzled wrote:Thats not how it works.

It was a settlement, it never reached the court room.

[polemicist]It reached the highest court..the court of public opinion[/polemicist]