When are we ever rid of them?

[Bali Hai]

What is the name of your state? NY

Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce
Last Updated: 6:00pm BST 28/06/2007

A wealthy retired builder was ordered to pay more money to the woman he divorced nearly 30 years ago after a judge heard she had "fallen on hard times", the Court of Appeal was told yesterday.

Dennis North, 70, was divorced from his first wife Jean, 61, in 1978 - a year after finding out she was having an affair with the man she later went to live with.

In 1981 he made a financial settlement with the woman he married in 1964, buying her a house and investments.

Over the years, he increased her assets so that she would have been able to live comfortably for the rest of her life, the judges were told.

But in 1999, she sold up and moved to Australia where she saw her capital dwindle because of bad investments and what the court was told was a lifestyle beyond her means.

A district judge awarded her a lump sum of £202,000 in April last year despite agreeing that Mrs North's money troubles had nothing to do with her former husband and he had no further responsibility towards her.

Since his divorce from his first wife, Mr North had prospered and his wealth is now estimated at between £5 million and £11 million, the court was told.

Mr North, who was left to bring up the three children of the marriage and has two children by his second wife, wants the Court of Appeal to quash the award.

Philip Moor QC, representing him, told the panel of judges headed by Lord Justice Thorpe that Mrs North had made no attempt to find a job since 1977, when she was 32.

When she sold all her assets and emigrated, she chose to live in an expensive part of Sydney, he said.

If she had stayed in the North of England she would have been comfortably off for the rest of her life.

"The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives," he told the three judges.

Mr Moor told Lord Justice Thorpe, sitting with Lord Justice May and Mr Justice Bennett, that it was not his client's fault that his first wife "has fallen on hard times and she cannot now go back for a second bite of the cherry".

But Mrs North's counsel, Deborah Bangay QC, said it was not her client's fault that her investments had gone wrong and the District Judge took account of her ex-husband's wealth and the fact that she needed additional support when he gave her an award at the "bottom end of the spectrum".

She added: "This was not a second bite at the cherry, but it is what are her reasonable needs. The court was entitled to take into account the obvious wealth of her former husband. It was an extraordinarily modest award set against his wealth."

The court reserved its judgment to a date to be fixed.

[moburkes]

I hope that doesn't happen in the US. That's ridiculous. We agree, Bali.

[nextwife]

Agreed. Totally ridiculous. What did SHE do for herself since '78! And why is her failure now HIS responsibility? What if it were now HE fallen on hard times, asking HER for help, after he'd provided for HER?

Oh, yeah, women can't be expected to function without a man bailing them out. How insulting is THAT concept to us girls!

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by nextwife

Agreed. Totally ridiculous. What did SHE do for herself since '78! And why is her failure now HIS responsibility? What if it were now HE fallen on hard times, asking HER for help, after he'd provided for HER?

Oh, yeah, women can't be expected to function without a man bailing them out. How insulting is THAT concept to us girls!

This is obviously UK law and not US law. Its really kind of irrelevant for this forum.

Europeans do view marriage differently than we do in the US. If I remember properly divorce isn't even possible in Ireland (unless things changed recently) and in Italy you have to be separated for 5 years until you can get a divorce (again, unless things have changed very recently) and in the UK you have to be separated for two years....and so on and so forth.

So, its not that unusual to me that former spouses might have some financial responsibility under European laws.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

This is obviously UK law and not US law. Its really kind of irrelevant for this forum.

Europeans do view marriage differently than we do in the US. If I remember properly divorce isn't even possible in Ireland (unless things changed recently) and in Italy you have to be separated for 5 years until you can get a divorce (again, unless things have changed very recently) and in the UK you have to be separated for two years....and so on and so forth.

So, its not that unusual to me that former spouses might have some financial responsibility under European laws.

And just where do you think US law originated from??

[LdiJ]

Originally Posted by Bali Hai

And just where do you think US law originated from??

US law has its roots in ancient Roman law, English Common law and the Napoleonic Code.
However US family law developed quite independently from any of them.

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by LdiJ

US law has its roots in ancient Roman law, English Common law and the Napoleonic Code.
However US family law developed quite independently from any of them.

US family law has it's roots in religious sects and evolved from european family law.

[tuffbrk]

They just didn't want her to use the UK version of Welfare. So - instead of saying - tough cookies, deal with it babe - like anyone else would have to do that had never been married and since they don't want to pay for her to live, he gets stuck because he was once young and stupid and married a person who is missing the genetic codes for PRIDE and SELF WORTH.

Really no different than here in the states. As for it not happening here? You might want to google Lepis and anti-Lepis. Then there's the recent cases where rehabiitative alimony "turns into" permanent alimony down the road. It's ridiculous. When alimony first came about in the 1800's it made sense. We need some updates to the laws, and frankly, if you can't put it in a calculator to figure it out- such as for child support - it shouldn't be done. Numbers are numbers. And how would anyone like another person telling them how to manage their career, their finances, etc. Absolutely stinks when you're dovrcing or are divorced from a person who refuses to take responsibility for themselves, their decisions, their lives.

Yuck -

[Bali Hai]

Originally Posted by tuffbrk

They just didn't want her to use the UK version of Welfare. So - instead of saying - tough cookies, deal with it babe - like anyone else would have to do that had never been married and since they don't want to pay for her to live, he gets stuck because he was once young and stupid and married a person who is missing the genetic codes for PRIDE and SELF WORTH.

Amen sister.

Really no different than here in the states.

Totally agree.

As for it not happening here? You might want to google Lepis and anti-Lepis. Then there's the recent cases where rehabiitative alimony "turns into" permanent alimony down the road. It's ridiculous. When alimony first came about in the 1800's it made sense. We need some updates to the laws, and frankly, if you can't put it in a calculator to figure it out- such as for child support - it shouldn't be done. Numbers are numbers. And how would anyone like another person telling them how to manage their career, their finances, etc. Absolutely stinks when you're dovrcing or are divorced from a person who refuses to take responsibility for themselves, their decisions, their lives.

Yuck -

You go girl.