Outrage over divorce settlement

How could a judge make me hand over £2.7million to my ex-wife 10 YEARS after we divorced? Glenn’s cautionary tale and a ruling that could have consequences for all divorced couples
Glenn Briers, 61, from Willenhall, West Midlands, has a £10m fashion empire
He has already given ex Nicola £600,000 home and a £10,000 a year salary
The father-of-three divorced in 2005 and said they were amicable until recently

The reason is actually in the piece:

Had Glenn tied up their 2005 divorce agreement legally, he suspects it is unlikely that Nicola would have had a case to bring.

….
She sat in front of the solicitor and it was drawn up, but we never signed it.

Silly Billy makes a Glum Glenn.

38 comments on “Outrage over divorce settlement

  1. Who in their right minds think they can take up with another woman and not have the former wife turn vengeful?

    He should have got her signature on paper. An oral contract, to quote that great philosopher, Samuel Goldwyn, is not worth the paper it is written on.

    Not that it would have helped him. A judge could have let her come back for more. They have in the past.

  2. An oral contract, to quote that great philosopher, Samuel Goldwyn, is not worth the paper it is written on.

    Well, it does seem to be so in certain areas. Depends on how the judge wants to interpret it.

    Anyway, there was a story in the Mail yesterday about a divorce ten years ago where the woman got the cash and other stuff and the man the house. It was over 1/4 million. She pissed it away on property speculation so yesterday the judge decided that as the bloke was now worth a bit of money (made in the years since the divorce) he should pay her nearly £4k a month for the rest of her life.

    The fact that the previous legal settlement was that – a settlement, end of proceedings – the judge decided that another bite of the bank account was allowed.

    The divorce law in the country, if one can go so far as to give it the benefit of the word ‘law’, is a joke.

  3. The order should have been that the husband pay maintenance in the sum of £1,441 a month until further order of the court.

    Yes, an order to increase it again.

    ‘The husband has and had the ability to make the maintenance payments asked for.’

    So does the judge. I expect her neighbour might too. So what? You spot someone with a bit of cash and attach a parasite to them?

  4. That decision seems shocking.

    And I’m wondering how on earth she managed to lose money in south-east/London property over the last 15 years…

    The only thing I can think of re the decision is the sentence about the husband seeking a ‘clean break’. If it is being used in the legal sense it may mean the two of them never actually had a final financial settlement, although it sounds like they did.

  5. So they are coming right out and saying that marriage is a form of indentured servitude for life?

    Even slaves had a small chance of being freed.

    Still, it is nice to see the Left gradually evolving their way back to the Catholic position – marriage is indissoluble and for life. Which is ironic now the Catholics have a non-Catholic Pope who is busy trying to find a way to dump that position.

  6. “Ex-wife gets very generous settlement, and blows the lot. Ten years later, comes back to court to make ex-husband pay more, and wins.”

    Not exactly, if you read the details. Man agrees to pay his wife £230K lump sum plus £1100/month maintenance, wife blows her capital, goes back to court, judge decides that her living costs were £1440 rather than £1100 so awards her that. She’s getting an extra £340/month, not 1440 or 4k. Which given he’s apparently been able to get an income of up to £200k from his business interests (how they aren’t included I have no idea) is something of a win for him I’d say. It could have been considerably worse.

    It goes without saying on principle she shouldn’t have gotten anything, but its just another piece of evidence to add to the massive mountain that no man with assets or income should ever get married, under any circumstances.

  7. How could a judge make me hand over £2.7million to my ex-wife 10 YEARS after we divorced? Glenn’s cautionary tale and a ruling that could have consequences for all divorced couples

    Makes you wonder how such a fool could accumulate such wealth?

    Glenn Briers, 61, from Willenhall, West Midlands, has a £10m fashion empire

    Ahh, there’s bigger fools to feed from.

  8. Isn’t there a principle that a contract, oral or not, is valid as soon as consideration (ie payment) is given? I seem to recall my law professor telling us that. Mind you, it was almost 30 years ago.

    If she had not accepted the money at the start, the oral contract would be invalid.

  9. Monoi it seems that family court judges regard contract law as something best avoided. It used to be that UK was thought to be a good place for divorce shopping, ie that there was reasonable certainty how a judgment might be decided without the unpredictability of other jurisdictions and the explicit desire to screw over the wealthy man. What happened to change that?

  10. Contract law doesn’t apply in divorce. It’s up to the court to sanction what is “fair”.

    Even written agreements need to be signed off on by the judge as a consent order to be enforceable. And even then there are all sorts of ways to go back to court to get it “varied”

  11. @Jim: We need to look at why the wife ‘blew her capital’:

    “Frank Feehan QC, for Mrs Mills, admitted she had mismanaged her finances, but said she had not been “profligate or wanton” and had had health problems. “Here was a woman, left with responsibility for a young child, without enough money to buy a house which was good enough, in her view. It was reasonable for her to get a mortgage,” he said. “

    We aren’t talking about a woman unable to house herself & her child adequately. We are talking about a woman unwilling to live within her means.

  12. Sandman,
    “Contract law doesn’t apply in divorce.”

    Ah, but it used to, and then the government decided women weren’t fully sentient beings who could make and be held to agreements so the courts had to do it for them.

    Witchie,
    My thoughts exactly. If the courts act like this it’s no wonder men resort to the traditional spade, sack of quicklime and “she’s gone to stay with her sister.”

  13. I have objection to reviewing maintenance payments, £20 a week in 1979 shouldn’t be left at £20 a week in 1999, but it should be just that, reviewed for income/price changes, etc. My Mum’s maintainance of £20/w in 1979 was 10% of my Dad’s income and was comparable with Dole, in 1999 it was something like 1% of my Dad’s income and about 1/3 of the level of Dole.

  14. And girlfriend wonders why I won’t marry, ever.

    Oddly enough marriage rates are down too, any connection?

  15. It looks as if we will soon enter the twilight world of pre-nups. Anything for lawyers to earn a hard-earned wagyu wrap.

  16. “the Catholic position – marriage is indissoluble and for life” except for the rich or powerful.

  17. Gareth: but the direction of travel is to make any form of association an automatically opted-in enforcable contract with financial payouts on dissolution.

    Thoroughly disagree with it. If you want the legal rights and protections of X you must opt into X by signing up to X. It’s moer progression down the road of something for nothing. “I want the benefits of X without signing up for X!!!!”

  18. As the old saying has it, don’t bother getting married – just find a woman you don’t like and give her a house.

  19. Problem with marriage is that you can sign up with a known set of rules. The rules can then be changed retrospectively, so even if you think you’ve got a known risk, you have no idea how far that risk can be increased.

    It would be unconscionable to do the same with other arrangements without a prior announcement of intent. At that point you can decide to change course or not.

    Women can’t understand why a man would have a problem with that, but most also can’t understand why a man is concerned about paternity; women simply can’t be robbed of their genetic legacy in the normal course of events the way a man can.

  20. Any commenters who dislike the fact that the rules of marriage can be changed retrospectively, would be hypocritical if they also support Trump’s ban. Since it would be reasonable green card holders from Iran etc who have been living in the US for years to believe that they could come and go from the US provided that they remained resident in the US. Trump decided to change the rules retrospectively.

  21. Oi, matey, shouldn’t you be the Pendant-General around here?

    “Trump decided to change the rules retrospectively.” Did he? I understood he simply used a statute bearing the signature of Obama.

  22. “As the old saying has it, don’t bother getting married – just find a woman you don’t like and give her a house.”

    And a lifetimes free income too.

  23. jgh – “but the direction of travel is to make any form of association an automatically opted-in enforcable contract with financial payouts on dissolution.”

    As the Family Courts are basically an alliance between feminists and the losers in High School who never got to go out with the pretty girls and are seething about it still, the aim is to reward women and to a lesser extent punish men. That is pretty much it.

    So a man who has a girlfriend must pay if they break up. The woman is entitled to cash and prizes! Someone must given them to her! Most of the English speaking world has moved this way. Britain looks like it will follow.

    The question is what makes you liable to paying? I think most jurisdictions say living together for a year. Expect that to shorten. And never ever refer to her as your wife, or spouse or life partner. I would be wary of even calling her your current girlfriend. Don’t let her do it either.

  24. “Since it would be reasonable green card holders from Iran etc who have been living in the US for years to believe that they could come and go from the US provided that they remained resident in the US. Trump decided to change the rules retrospectively.”

    Crap. After a bit of initial confusion, Green Card holders were indeed allowed to travel as per normal. And despite what the idiot judge in Washington said, no foreigner has ever had any claim, moral or legal, to unrestricted entry to the US. This has always been regarded as an Executive Branch competence. Nothing has changed, and no precedent has been set. In a normal world the stay on the order would have been struck down immediately, but now it will go to the 4-4 Supreme Court which will probably fail to grant a certiorari meaning it will stand. If Trump can get Gorsuch through lickety-spit then maybe not. Unlikely, mind.

  25. SMFS

    “I think most jurisdictions say living together for a year.”

    Just curious – where do you get that from?

  26. @BiCR

    After a bit of initial confusion, Green Card holders were indeed allowed to travel as per normal.

    That’s the public sector for you. And yet these protesters want MOAR GUBBERNMINT.

    I wonder how much of the disruption has been caused by people who aren’t good enough to handle a job in the private sector, rather than the order itself.

  27. “Problem with marriage is that you can sign up with a known set of rules. The rules can then be changed retrospectively, so even if you think you’ve got a known risk, you have no idea how far that risk can be increased.”

    Sounds a lot like pensions, doesn’t it?

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.