Women are backing out of divorce cases because settlements are becoming less generous, experts have said.
Fewer wives are being awarded income for life and they are increasingly having their divorce settlement limited to a few years.
This is making some of them back off from going through with a split, law firms say.
Incentives matter, do they?
Saying incentives matter is kind. Another way of phrasing that is that some women are motivated by the money and would prefer to take the cash than put out every few months.
Why the State should have spent 50 years helping these women is beyond me.
It is indeed an incentive.
I wish I could have seen Mrs. Gamecock II’s face when she realized she was NOT going to get my money. And I wish I could have seen her lawyer’s face when MGII confronted her that she lied that she would.
The back slapping, “We’re gonna get him,” must have been fun while it lasted.
“Why the State should have spent 50 years helping these women is beyond me”: spot on. What was the argument for the income for life? Why was the argument conclusive in England and Wales but not elsewhere?
Would the Law of E & W become better, on the whole, if parliament and the senior courts were moved out of London to, say, Manchester, York, Leeds, Newcastle? I know, Liverpool.
Or Wolverhampton. Or Leicester. Or, seeing as it is the law of England and Wales, Aberystwyth. I reckon Aberystwyth
is the best choice.
I think this jurisdiction does it better. WKPD:-
“Matrimonial property is generally all the property acquired by the spouses during the marriage but before their separation, as well as housing and furnishings acquired for use as a home before the marriage, but excludes property gifted or inherited. Either party to the marriage can apply to the court for an order under the 1985 Act. The court can make orders for the payment of a capital sum, the transfer of property, the payment of periodical sums, and other incidental orders. In making an order, the court is, under the Act, guided by the following principles:
The net value of the matrimonial property should be shared fairly, and the starting point is that it should be shared equally; but fair account should be taken of economic advantage derived by either party from contributions by the other, and of economic disadvantage suffered by either party in the interests of the other party or of the family; …
The general approach of the … courts is to settle financial issues by the award of a capital sum if at all possible, allowing for a ‘clean break’ settlement, but in some cases periodical allowances may be paid, usually for a limited period. …”
So bloke gets stuck back with a woman that doesn’t want him. Or, rather more likely, still funding her (now independent) lifestyle.
Perhaps the party sued should be able to insist on the divorce going ahead on the terms offered by the court, rather than the complainant being able to drop the action when they find it’s less lucrative than they thought.
Excellent thought Biggie. They would certainly have to think twice before going ahead with the divorce.
Also binding pre-nups AND custody arrangement in place before marriage would solve lots of problems.
I have several times in my life been so besotted by a woman that I have toyed with the Richard the Third’s dictum, transmogrified into of “My Kingdom for a Shag” (not the horse, as that wasn’t the ride I was contemplating). Fortunately, good sense (and probably my general unattractiveness to the target of my desires) has saved me from a life of penury afterwards.
There is, of course, one great advantage of having feck-all, and that is that the grasping tax collector has to whistle for it, knowing that if he pursues you all the way to imprisonment you become the beneficiary of state largesse!
If his wife drops the suit, what is to stop the husband picking it up again?
I am sure the Courts will not be as sympathetic, but on the other hand he has pretty good evidence to show his marriage has broken down. Especially if she has signed some sworn statements.
That’s pretty much the way property is handled in the U.S., dearieme. Though the split may be skewed a little if one of the couple has some guilt, like adultery.
Child support and alimony are generally independent of the property split.