This whole case raises an important issue though. Now, whilist accepting that the Parlour's was an exceptional case in terms of his wealth, and that the money is to guarentee the financial security of the woman and the children (she must put £294000 away a year), can we not say that this does not allow for a 'clean break'. I have 2 scnearios (sp) which i would like a response on :
1) a man of a moderate wage divorces his housewife wife, who has no applicable skills in the modern age. They have one child of 6 years old. Should then, the future earnings of the husband be an asset of the marriage such that he can continue to support the wife and the child ? (the child is obvious due to CS/alimony payments!) This doesn't seem fair to me, and neither does the Parlour's case, because whilst i believe the wife to be entitled to half of all the marriage's assets, i don't believe that his future earnings should be given to the wife, as when the wife files for divorce, she claims/states that she wants a 'clean break' from the marriage. I don't believe that this new ruling supports that claim.
2) If i divorce my wife, and future earnings ARE an asset of the marriage, and i subsequently win the lottery, does this mean i owe half of my £1m win to my wife ? THAT hardly seems fair.
Turn on thread page Beta
Divorce Settlements watch
- 09-07-2004 16:11
- 09-07-2004 16:16
What exactly is a marriage assest?
Say I end up being a millionaire, and marry a woman with next to no money. If she divorces me, will she make of with a sizeable chunk of money? And why? And how much difference would it make if the children were involved ( ie her winning and gettig custody, or taking care of them)
(Original post by vmong)
- 09-07-2004 16:33
that woman should be killed