Why only a £24.3m settlement?

[Darat]

I understand that and the NFP (thanks for bringing it to this thread) approach does seem a sensible and pragmatic approach to making a decision on how assets should be split during a divorce. However my wish for the 50/50 split is based on what I consider a marriage to be i.e. a voluntary partnership of two equals.

I perhaps should add that I am absolutely certain that such legislation will never be enacted as people are of course greedy and selfish and usually only divorce for negative reasons.

 

[Darat]

I think I understand why you feel that way...after all, the dissolution of marriage has become a MUCH bigger negotiation process than deciding to get married initially...but I still must disagree, when children are involved. If we were to, in all cases, divide property between two adults in a 50/50 way, consider what that might do to the financial security of children who most often end up living in one household or the other. And also, to be fair, if we are going to say "oh well, you knew what was coming. 50/50, that's the deal", then how can we honestly then demand one parent pay yet another portion of his or her 50% to the other parent with custody of the child? You see, it can't turn out to be 50/50, not when children are involved. Someone is still, more often than not, going to end up paying more. And even if it COULD, even if the custodial parent didn't want additional support for the child/children, then still that child's/those children's financial stability has been reduced by half. For most people (not the mega rich), this type of division wouldn't be beneficial to children, who are also parties involved in the marriage.

People with no children, or adult children? Okay, I can see applying the 50/50 idea. After all, one can transfer part of one's wealth to adult children BEFORE remarrying if one wants. But when minor children are involved? I'm sorry, I just cannot agree with an outright 50/50 split. While it might not affect the financial stability of children of the mega wealthy,for average people with average incomes, it seems like an unfair thing to do to the children involved.

I was trying to avoid the complication of (dependent) children but you raise good points.

I would like children to be considered first in any financial settlement, so their interests are protected and of a higher priority than the parents in every single case. This could mean for instance that a family home is not sold (to split 50/50) but rather something like a trust assumes ownership of the house for the time the children require it as a home (e.g. stop being dependents) and then it could be sold and the assets divided 50/50 to the parents (with perhaps a fair amount for rent being deducted if one parent had continued to live in the house).

Of course what we end up will be a pretty complex system.... again....

 

[dirtywick]

It is a voluntary partnership, I'm with you that far. But of equals? Financially, hardly.

There's no reason a married couple can't, amongst themselves, determine which assets are joint and which are individual. That's why a married couple is able to open joint checking accounts or keep seperate ones, get loans in both or their individual names, put both or one name on real estate deeds, car insurance, blah blah blah million other things.

And this actually works really well. Over time you'll probably find that the longer a couple is married, the more often their names appear on the same documents, the closer to 50/50 it is. Likewise a couple that has been married a short time will have few joint assets.

 

[Nogbad]

Before they married she had (according to the judgement) about tuppance ha'penny to her name and he £400 million, by getting married they decided to create a fortune worth £400 million and tuppance ha'penny. So that is the fortune that needed to be split (as it was) when they divorced.

I just want divorce settlements to be simplified with a straightforward 50/50 split so everyone getting into a marriage knows in advance and throughout the marriage what would happen if they divorced.

Yes but...

Paul and Linda (herself an heiress to the Eastman money) created most of that £400m and had four kids. Why should a Heather come lately lay claim to 50% of that money when clearly the original kids have a prior and legitimate claim. Yes Heather Mills is entitled to something but not to the detriment of others who have an equal claim. Certainly 50% of the earnings during the time they were together should be hers and assuming an even flow of income that is pretty much what she got. I think the judgement was fair and reasonable.

I am undecided whether she is dingbat or gold digger (or a bit of both).

 

[sugarb]

I was trying to avoid the complication of (dependent) children but you raise good points.

I would like children to be considered first in any financial settlement, so their interests are protected and of a higher priority than the parents in every single case. This could mean for instance that a family home is not sold (to split 50/50) but rather something like a trust assumes ownership of the house for the time the children require it as a home (e.g. stop being dependents) and then it could be sold and the assets divided 50/50 to the parents (with perhaps a fair amount for rent being deducted if one parent had continued to live in the house).

Of course what we end up will be a pretty complex system.... again....

Of course Divorce. Blah. Here's a radical idea (and entirely unrealistic, I suppose, but believe it or not, I have witnessed this being done successfully--though voluntary, not a requirement). What if, when grown ups decide to have children, even if they choose to dissolve their marriage, they be required to reside together in a household until those children reach the age of majority? Absent abuse issues, of course. I mean, it certainly isn't the fault of the child when two adults stop getting along...and children do not ask to be brought into this world, after all. Perhaps people would put at least more thought into having children, if not into getting married, if they knew they were, really and truly, going to be required by law to live with that child for at least 18 years. The parents are the adults. They can learn to get along if they have to (minus abuse issues, in which case the abusive/alcoholic/drug abusing/whatever type of abuse parent is banished from the home and marriage with nothing other than his or her own earning power).

What if, instead of putting the home in trust until the child reaches majority, we force a wait on the division of assets as a whole until that child reaches majority? After all, children have been, essentially, torn in half for far too long under most systems of divorce. Maybe it is the adults who should start sacrificing, instead of children, since they are the ones making the choices to begin with (minus, again, issues of abuse, in which, under my imaginary system, the abuser gets booted out with nothing).

Hah! LOL, I know, I know...impossible. But I kind of like the idea If that were to happen, then the 50/50 should pretty much always be reasonable, since, like I said, a very wealthy person could transfer wealth to other adult children before remarrying if they wish.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes but...

Paul and Linda (herself an heiress to the Eastman money) created most of that £400m and had four kids. Why should a Heather come lately lay claim to 50% of that money when clearly the original kids have a prior and legitimate claim. Yes Heather Mills is entitled to something but not to the detriment of others who have an equal claim. Certainly 50% of the earnings during the time they were together should be hers and assuming an even flow of income that is pretty much what she got. I think the judgement was fair and reasonable.

I am undecided whether she is dingbat or gold digger (or a bit of both).

Now it seems likely that if you are so dogmatic about a 50% split between the couple that kids don't matter at all.

 

[Thanz]

However my wish for the 50/50 split is based on what I consider a marriage to be i.e. a voluntary partnership of two equals.

I'd agree with you that this is what a marriage should be. Unfortunately, it seems that it is not always what a marriage is.

I perhaps should add that I am absolutely certain that such legislation will never be enacted as people are of course greedy and selfish and usually only divorce for negative reasons.

Does anyone get divorced for positive reasons??

 

[Matthew Best]

I just want divorce settlements to be simplified with a straightforward 50/50 split so everyone getting into a marriage knows in advance and throughout the marriage what would happen if they divorced.

Now I see where I was confused. I thought your initial post was saying that you thought Mills had got a bad settlement in this case, whereas what you were really saying was that you think divorce laws should be changed so that people like Mills will get better settlements in future cases.

 

[Darat]

Yes but...

Paul and Linda (herself an heiress to the Eastman money) created most of that £400m and had four kids. Why should a Heather come lately lay claim to 50% of that money when clearly the original kids have a prior and legitimate claim. Yes Heather Mills is entitled to something but not to the detriment of others who have an equal claim. Certainly 50% of the earnings during the time they were together should be hers and assuming an even flow of income that is pretty much what she got. I think the judgement was fair and reasonable.

I am undecided whether she is dingbat or gold digger (or a bit of both).

If a parent wants to leave a child something fair enough (albeit my views on inheritance are also not mainstream...) but that a divorce settlement should consider a claim to some money from prior to the marriage from (non dependent) children strikes me as being absurd.

Oh and dingbat & gold digger I'd say from reading the judgement.

 

[Darat]

...snip...


Does anyone get divorced for positive reasons??

Perhaps "emotionally upsetting" would have been a better phrase to use rather than negative.

 

[Darat]

Of course Divorce. Blah. Here's a radical idea (and entirely unrealistic, I suppose, but believe it or not, I have witnessed this being done successfully--though voluntary, not a requirement). What if, when grown ups decide to have children, even if they choose to dissolve their marriage, they be required to reside together in a household until those children reach the age of majority?


...snip...

My best friend from school parents did exactly this, they had drifted apart and after a few years of arguments realized the marriage was in fact ended but rather than divorce decided to live separate lives but still in the same family home.

My mate at the time and even many years later said it worked well as far as he and his sister was concerned, the arguments and the bad atmosphere pretty much ended, no one had to move out, kids didn't have to "choose" which parent to live with and so on.

But as you say as an enforced mechanism for everyone it would be entirely unrealistic.

 

[malbui]

Oh and dingbat & gold digger I'd say from reading the judgement.

Given the force of the criticisms in the judgement, couched though they are in legal politeness, I think she can count herself lucky that the judge didn't just award her 25 quid for the taxi home and leave it at that.

 

[christie malry]

"I don't like the idea of Mills profiting so I'll make fun of her disability"

Kinda mean.

I have absolutely no interest in this other than to make a couple of jokes. It's all a bunch of capitalist hyenas fighting over appropriated capital to me...

It annoys me less that I might be thought mean than that I couldn't keep back a joke that belongs on godawful nearly-satire the Now Show. Honestly, it's the sort of lazy pun that P*nt and Dennis usually make. Or worse, Mitch Benn. And what does that say about me? That I'm not nearly as witty as I'd like to think, I spose.

Bah, humbug.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

The firm 50/50 split encourages gold-digging and does not allow for any differences related to different relationships. This is why I prefer the NFP approach: its underlying premise is that what should be shared equally is the growth of assets during the marriage. Typically, the longer the marriage, the more the growth, the more the sharing. This approach also provides as much certainty as your hard 50/50 split.

I like the principle of NFP, but there are some practical difficulties. For example, what if, prior to the marriage, the wife has spent several years studying her way through university and as a result has a lot of debt, but also a very good degree and great prospects for future earnings?

What value is taken into account in the NFP calculation? Only the debts? Seems incredibly unfair as it ignores what is undoubtedly her most significant asset, which is her earning capability. Problem is of course, how you value that.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Does there exist somewhere a copy of a legally binding Financial Contract of Marriage, wholly sanctioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
I understood marriage to be a civil contract between (two people acting as an economic and social unit ) and the government (or society as a whole), imparting certain rights and responsibilities on either party.
I am unaware of any contractual document which states that what belonged to one person before the arrangement automatically belons to both the next day.
If such a document existed, I would confidently expect to find that on receiving half of £400, million, the acquirer would be liable for supertax on it.

 

[RandFan]

People are often different after marriage. You might intend to share your wealth with someone who turns out not to be what you thought they were. A guy makes a mistake, should he really be penalized in the amount of half of everything he has?

I have no idea what the truth is as it relates to their marriage but I don't accept that it should be automatic that the wife gets half.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I don't see that it should be automatic that either gets anything. Once upon a time in English law, a woman's estate automatically defaulted to her husband on marriage. By modern standards this was unjust.
Why is it more just that half of her estate should become his?
And if not hers, then why his?

When people apply to be treated as an economic unit for certain purposes- as with a limited company- a clear contractual limit to liability exists. Why is this different for a marriage?

Now if McArtney really signed a contract saying I endow thee with half my worldly goods- and both signed it before witnesses, then at least under Scots Law, I believe he would have to pay up. So it goes. (this would not require a marriage. A contract is a contract, as some house buyers, new to Scots Law, have learned the hard way.)

 

[Wildy]

Oh that bloke. Do we still need him? Should we still feed him?

But he's not sixty-four.

Before they married she had (according to the judgement) about tuppance ha'penny to her name and he £400 million, by getting married they decided to create a fortune worth £400 million and tuppance ha'penny. So that is the fortune that needed to be split (as it was) when they divorced.

I just want divorce settlements to be simplified with a straightforward 50/50 split so everyone getting into a marriage knows in advance and throughout the marriage what would happen if they divorced.

So wouldn't the answer be simple. He keeps his 400 million and she gets her tuppance ha'penny.

 

[Beerina]

I know the sum of £24.3 million is an incredible amount of money and means she can live a fantastic lifestyle for the rest of her life (materially any way) but apparently their fortune when they were married was £400 million. It seems very wrong that she walks away with so little, it should have been pretty much half of their £400 million.

Why should she get half of his fortune just for being married to him for a few years? Four years of marriage means she can strip away 50 years worth of hard work and earnings?

At best she should get half his net worth increase over those four years.

 

[Soapy Sam]

So- what's the divorce situation for couples in UK Civil Partnerships (whether gay or non)?