British Expatriate Network

I was just reading an article on the BBC website about a divorce settlement that is considered the biggest in legal history.

I didn't really have any idea about it all and was happy to just read it as a news story and nothing else... UNTIL I read one commend made by the man in the marriage, "Mr Charman had argued his wife should be awarded substantially less than an equal share because of his contribution, and his "importance in the global insurance market".

Now, bearing in mind they both came into the marriage with "neither had significant resources."

Now, is it just me or is Mr. Charman being a complete pig. Surely a marriage is equal partnership?

If you were to divorce your partner, would you expect equality? Should a man really get the majority just because he is the one that didn't stay at home to look after the kids?

I hope the courts stick with this decision purely just for that comment that Mr Charman believes his wife doesn't deserve half!!

Edited to add the link. Forgot roll

http//news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/5242294.stm

Living in California I'm pleased we get half. And they've just recently filled a loop hole that allowed the men to hide their assets legally.
If you price all that sitting around on couches we do in between housework we're worth a mere $75,000 a year, and that's without kids. Just cleaning, cooking, bill paying, painting, plumbing, laundry, ironing, ferrying stuff around.
I find men with this attitude to be emotionally stunted, valuing their worth on outside monetary payments only. Not what I'd call a gentleman. A rare species these days.
Lucky me, I bagged one, and I know of a few others and they're American. They're out there, you just have to be real picky.
mrgreen

I think she is greedy and he has a point.

Unless she was out earning that money in some way, I fail to see what right she has to it. This "50/50 or marriage is equal" thinking does not apply in all cases, even if you are lucky enough to think it applies to you.

He offered her a reasonable amount that was less than 50% admittedly. However, the court is counting assets that they both previously agreed would be left in trust in Bermuda, for their children.

The court should give her anything in her name, possibly 50% of what could be considered joint assets (house if she was co-mortgagee or co-owner etc.) but not any part of the trust fund or any of his future earnings/retirement.

This is pure greed and sorry to say that if I was him, I'd be doing the same - I pretty much did, on a smaller scale and was glad not to live in a community property state. I kept my pension and my house and have no regrets whatsoever.

A divorce lawyer (in both jurisdictions) writes....
In my considered legal opinion, Ben is corrent. Husband in this case is a pig (or at least something less insulting to the porcine community).

Forget the huge sums involved and look at the division in percentage terms.

Both parties enter marriage with nothing. They are married 20 years or so, they have children. She stays at home and raises the children, thus negating any career she may have had.
BUt for her, he would not have had both family and career.
English law takes a 50/50 split as a starting point.

Wife actually got only 37%.
Therefore it is true that this award is unfair - to the wife. She sought 45%, which was more than generous, she has every right to appeal. Husband is a greedy selfish whatsit and would do well to go back to Bermuda and stay there.

Ben is right, he is a money grabbing, riding, selfish father. If he tries to give his ex-wife a hard time, he will be by default giving his children a hard time too. In a marriage, if a woman decides with the husband to stay home and take care of the kids, it doesn't mean that she is contributing less. Actually, find a daycare and you'll see how expensive they can be. One around here costs over a $1000 per month for one child!

http//www.cremedelacreme.com/default2.asp , http//www.randallpaulson.com/Portfolio/childcare/beantree.html

He is looking to screw his ex. She probably gave up a lot to be a housewife, and we all do a lot of sacrifices too. Staying home isn't easy, I have done in the past and have a part-time work-education-home arrangement right now. I recognize that it is difficult for the guys to go all day out of the house and come back home late somedays. A marriage is a partnership, so she should get more, even though she is already rich, we should not discriminate her for that matter.

I'm aware that UK law looks at it as a 50/50 split but I still think it's wrong.

Now, a spouse whose husband or wife is worth say £20 million can decide one day that they'd rather like £10 million all to themselves. All they have to do is file for divorce, claim half and then have a lot of fun for the rest of their lives, wherever.

The millions could have been made in a business she never contributed to and never set foot in - the courts simply don't care.

The Bermuda Trust should not have been touched. I believe the court made the ruling on what the wife told them because Bermuda financial organisations would not turn over information on accounts held there, demanded by a British court and they have no reason to - they are not party to the Hague Convention that allows countries to demand financial information from another country. It now appears that trust funds in foreign tax shelters are a waste of time for people in the UK now.

Is is really that difficult to be a spouse of a multi-millionaire? Did she raise the children or did she have a nanny on hand?

I used to live near a woman whose successful entrepreneur husband dumped her for someone else but he conceded that she had contributed considerably to raising his two children, supporting him for almost 20 years and physically contributing to his successful business. I don't think he or anyone else had any qualms about her getting a sizable settlement but I am pretty sure it still wasn't 50% - this was about 10 years ago so perhaps things are tightening up in UK now.

Rather than try to encourage the partners to stay together, the courts and attorneys (no offense Rob but your response was more than predictable) now work like vultures to pick over the carcass and in some cases, punish the wealthier or more successful partner. Surely the status quo should be preserved where possible and how can this be so if a businessman or woman has to sell massive loads of shares or worse, dissolve his or her business so that the spouse can have half of something they never really contributed to?

I would hope that in future, people take a close look at who they are marrying and ask themselves all the way up to the altar "Do I really want to give this person 50% of everything I own in the future?" and if not, look into things like pre-nuptual/post-nuptual agreements.

Pilgrim, one thing I would agree with you on is the benefit of a pre-nuptual. However the option would not have been open to this couple as pre-nups were illegal and unenforceable in England until recently (2003 I think).

You cannot possibly know what the Court knew of husbands finances as under English family law this is sealed. What I would say is that Husband has an obligation to provide information and both parties were represented by very expensive and presumably well qualified Solicitors and Barristers.
If the court lacked info on the trust and therefore ruled in wife's favor based on her reprsentations, Husband has only himself to blame.

Marriage is a partnership, as such, why should either party come away with a greater share of the marital assets? 50/50 is a starting point, the courts consider all the relevant factors presented by the parties.
I remind you that wife only got 37% of the assets. It may have amounted to a huge sum of money, but in percentage terms it was substantially less that she could reasonably claim.
We don't know what the impact on him will be, but given the amount involved, I don't see him being holed up in a Motel Six any time soon.

On the fees/vultures issue. Divorce can't be done on a contingency, only on eithe ran hourly rate or flat fee. Thus the huge sums involved do not predicate huge fees for the attorneys.

This is not to say that, particularly in the US, there is not an element of 'churning' (deliberately doing unnecessary work to generate fees). This is inexcusable in my view. Aside from being unethical, it borders on fraud. In England this is less prevalent because costs follow the cause, so the otherside and the Court see your bills.

British law does not guarantee a 50/50 split. What it must do is take into account the non-working partners contribution i.e running the home, raising the family especially if they gave up their job to to this. They also take into account assests gained during the marriage, in this case they both started with nothing.
That man is a selfish pig. No wonder they split up.
Heather Mills' career wasn't affected during her marriage to Paul (you could say his was) so therefore she can only expect money from any earnings during the four(?)years they were together.
My friend recently divorced her husband. As he was ill for most of the marriage, she had to pay him a lump sum and provide maintainance until he's back at work. He also got half of the house.

Cant say i wont to state an opinion of who should get what in a divorce since ive been party to a few of them my views are best left unsaid .

Remember thou in a divorce as in all civil law suits money is the operendi and both parties want to grap as much of it as they can ,untherwise it would have been setttled out of court .

One of your exes must have been awarded the family dictionary lol

Ouch - bit mean :lol:

Rob,

I take your point that Mr. Charman is not going to be out on the streets any time soon but the problem is that this and other awards of late will affect smaller cases that follow - case law, I believe they call it in your profession and judges supposedly follow precedents.

Now if Mr. Smith employs 50 people and Mrs. Smith decides she wants half what he or they are worth, to do with as she pleases, what stops her forcing Mr. Smith to sell the entire business, probably laying off staff in the process?

How is that beneficial for anyone other than Mr. Smith and then who becomes the "selfish pig", as mentioned in a previous post? (Not trying to call out the poster - it is possibly a valid opinion, if you look deeper into Mr. Charman's past but we shouldn't have courts to pass moral judgements and punish for lack of character on a spouse's part).

The case that Stepneyborn mentions sounds a bit crazy too - interesting that it is the wife getting stiffed there. Is that in the United States?

Pilgrim,
50/50 is a starting point - not the hard and fast rule.
In your hypothetical of Smith and Smith - the court will take into account the income from the company to the Husband/ Wife. I have cases just like this here and it is in no ones interests to kill the business and the Court won't.

Also, you need to distinguish the Charman case from the other recent English cases.

Charman involves huge sums of but otherwise unremarkable. The other recent cases set new precedents, particularly in respect of short term marriages (less than 5 years). I don't necessarily agree with those earlier rulings.
Charman however should count himself lucky that the court stopped at 48 million.

But maybe if she hadn't been the stay-at-home partner, she could have made millions too? She gave up her chance to allow him his.

Yes, women get "stiffed" in the same way that men do when they are the ones working and the man is the one who is out of work.

I'd just like to ask some of the people who are glad they get 50/50, say if you were working and your husband decided to stop working, would you still be glad of the 50/50 thing? Would it be OK for you to carry on working and support your husband while he earns nothing in the event of a divorce?

Would the woman be a "selfish pig" to want more than her 50%?

My friend and her husband are British and they divorced in the UK last year. She wanted out and realised he was entitled to something, so she did the right thing.

A marriage is a partnership, if you look at it in financial terms only the marriage is already doomed. If you don't respect or recognize the contribution your spouse has made to a marriage, be it financial or otherwise, then you ARE a selfish pig.

I'm in London at the moment and have read many reports on this and similar cases that have been publicised recently. One also features a wealthy businesswoman who had to give her ex their home and considerable maintainance. It's not a male/female thing, it's really about what defines marriage.