Wow, the CE forum is hopping nowadays :)

Link.

The story is interesting because of the grounds given for divorcees to extract considerable sums from their partners.

I don't think the first one is terribly controversial, but the second one (the Miller's) seems like it's going one step too far.

The Law Lords are effectively upholding the part of the ruling that said Now this was only after a two year marriage, she was not looking after children as in the first case.

I can understand divorce settlments giving a fair share, I can even understand 'compensation' for the giving up of a career as in the first case, but it seems to me that many people can have a "reasonable expectation" of a future wealthy lifestyle but this doesn't mean they're entitled to one! It seems like a lousy platform from which to make law. And she gets £250,000 a year for life (about $400,000) for simply marrying the guy for two years? It would have been cheaper for him to hire a prostitute as a companion for that time...

What do y'all think? Unjust?

[ 05-26-2006, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Hmmm... *I'd* be willing to marry him for two years at that rate :D

The upside: women do often get the short end of a divorce settlement

The downside: you're back to whoever has the better lawyer and can make the most convincing case about how poorly their client is doing and how well the other party is doing. The stakes are just higher.

Basing it on future expectations is not so ridiculous. Imagine if she worked like a dog so he could finish medical school, and once he was done, he dumped her. Wouldn't past sacrifice and future expectations play into that?

*makes note to self: don't get into the divorce thing...*

I spoke with my sister about my divorce, and told her that if I ever bring home someone she doesn't like to just up and smack me on the back of the head, no explanations needed, I just wish she had done it 4 1/2 years ago... (of course then I wouldn't have my lovely daughters that I wouldn't give up for the world).

I think this is ridicullous. You split what you got while you were together. Not what you got before, expesially in this case.

Let's say the guy worked 30 years, got to the top of a big company, and then married. So now after two year, the wife that did NOTHING to help him get there suddently get half his lifetime's work for free?

I believe the theory is that if someone has an "expectation" of a wealthy lifestyle, they're going to quit their job, not seek further education, and so on... Perhaps they were just trying to set a precedent, as this argument is valid when a couple is married for ten years, but certainly not two.

This is why I have one rule regarding breakups:

I know she's gonna screw me over somehow, so I make sure to give her a right good beating at the time of the breakup, make sure she has one last good fall down the stairs. Nothing deadly, of course, I just want to get my money's worth, that's all.

LOL! TL, you make me think of one of my uncles. One of his sons did something, and when my uncle got mad, his son said, "You touch me, and I'll call the police for child abuse".

My uncle responded, "Go ahead. When they get here, it will be."

My cousin decided not to find out if he was serious or not...

That first ruling isn't awful. It looks very similar to Canadian family law (from my limited exposure to it). Besides, it makes sense because it was a long marriage.

The second ruling upholds the expectations of every wannabe Anna Nicole Smith in the world.

As for wife-beating, I won't even joke about it because I don't find it funny. Taking out one's emotional anger on someone who is (presumably) smaller and weaker than oneself is not macho, or payback, or whatever. It's cowardly, immature, and brutal.

It's fun, that's what it is. Don't talk about it until you've tried it. Honestly, can anyone live with a woman long term without beating the snot out of her sooner or later?

<font color=steelblue>
There's a debate behind the scenes with those that reported this post.

Some call it flame-baiting and others say that you think you're being funny.

I don't know which it is, but I think in either case you had just better shut up and move on. </font>