Weird story in british press

[PaulaSB12]

I found this story in one of the british newspapers, firstly I thought it was just a man trying to evade his responsibilities but then went when I read it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...0-year-divorce-payout-hiring-private-eye.html

So a couple break apart she moves in with another man and has a child by him but still expects her ex husband to pay for her!!!!!!!!!!

Nigel Dyer QC, representing Mrs Grey, claimed the payments should continue and it would be 'draconian' to stop them. He denied that she and Mr Thompson were cohabiting.

Insisting that 'cohabitation cannot be equated to remarriage', the barrister added that, even if she was living with her lover, her maintenance payments should continue 'without deduction'.

She gives a bad name to women with that attitude or maybe she expects her ex to give her child support for this second child with her boyfriend as well.

 

[dcentity2000]

I found this story in one of the british newspapers, firstly I thought it was just a man trying to evade his responsibilities but then went when I read it.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...0-year-divorce-payout-hiring-private-eye.html

So a couple break apart she moves in with another man and has a child by him but still expects her ex husband to pay for her!!!!!!!!!!

Nigel Dyer QC, representing Mrs Grey, claimed the payments should continue and it would be 'draconian' to stop them. He denied that she and Mr Thompson were cohabiting.

Insisting that 'cohabitation cannot be equated to remarriage', the barrister added that, even if she was living with her lover, her maintenance payments should continue 'without deduction'.

She gives a bad name to women with that attitude or maybe she expects her ex to give her child support for this second child with her boyfriend as well.

That's just awful!



Rich::

 

[Disney Doll]

That man owes his ex-wife child support and nothing else, IMHO.

 

[Jennasis]

That man owes his ex-wife child support and nothing else, IMHO.

Not if I read it right, and I may not have. The child is the woman and her lovers, not the woman and her ex husbands.

 

[Boxley]

"He was also instructed to keep up the £125,000 annual payments until she remarried - even though Mrs Grey admitted she was pregnant with her lover's child at a previous hearing."

It's not his kid.

 

[dawson5]

They have an 8 yr old daughter together though. The newborn is his ex-wife's and her lover's.

They initially 'married' in Spain in 1998 but had to renew their vows in London in 2003 when they discovered the first marriage was not valid under UK law. After their marriage broke down in 2005 the pair, who have an eight-year-old daughter, moved out of their home in St John's Wood, North-West London.

 

[jen0610]

As I read it in the story, as part of the divorce decree she was awarded a settlement of a house, an upfront lump sum of money, and an annual payment of the 125,000. The annual payment is in effect until she REMARRIES.

At this time, the story doesn't state that the ex-wife and her new partner are married. According to the story, she may or may not be living with the guy, according to the evidence the ex-husband says he has. But the decree doesn't say the payment can be stopped for living with someone, just remarried, per the story.

I know of several people who have a maintenance payment as part of their decree and all of them stop only upon the receiver remarrying or after X number of years. I know of one lady, who after her divorce, lived with her new partner and did not marry him until after the said number of years were up. Right or wrong, is not for me to say....it was awarded by the original judge and was maintained by other judges over the years of going back to court for a reason.

 

[dawson5]

Yep but it also says that if he can prove she is "cohabiting" with someone else, he can get the payments stopped or drastically reduced.

Under British law maintenance is usually paid until the party who is receiving the payments remarries. However, this can be stopped or dramatically reduced if they are taken to court by their former partner in the event they set up home with a new lover.

As long as he is not leaving his daughter in an unstable home situation, I think he has every right to do this. I think it also states that the lover is "not without means." If I interpret that meaning correctly, sounds like he has money of his own.

My old boss was in this situation. His wife was fooling around with the chief of police, he divorced her, she kept the house and moved her boyfriend in.

 

[NotUrsula]

This really isn't that unusual; traditionally, alimony payments were meant to continue for life or legal remarriage, regardless of changing circumstance, and waiving it at the time of the divorce was never a bar to getting it eventually. There was a story in the Wall Street Journal a few weeks ago on this topic:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703399204574505700448957522.html
(You can't see it unless you subscribe, so I'll quote a few snippets for everyone else.)

Paul and Theresa Taylor were married for 17 years. He was an engineer for Boston's public-works department, while she worked in accounting at a publishing company. They had three children, a weekend cottage on the bay and a house in the suburbs ... In 1982, when they got divorced, the split was amicable. She got the family home; he got the second home. Both agreed "to waive any right to past, present or future alimony."

But recently, more than two decades after the divorce, Ms. Taylor, 64, told a Massachusetts judge she had no job, retirement savings or health insurance. Earlier this year, the judge ordered Mr. Taylor, now 68 and remarried, to pay $400 per week to support his ex-wife.

The story to goes on to discuss efforts in state legislatures to guard against scenarios like the above, because they happen quite often.
Like this one:

Last month, Massachusetts representatives heard testimony from Brenda Caggiano, a 70-year-old retired first-grade teacher who supports her ex-husband, Robert, a certified public accountant. [...] When the Caggianos divorced in 2003, they split their assets. He got their home on Cape Cod. She got their home in a Boston suburb, and paid him the $57,000 difference in the value of the homes. [...]

Ms. Caggiano earned more at the time, so the court ordered her to pay $125 in weekly alimony until her death or her former husband's remarriage. [...] Ms. Caggiano says she's living pension-check-to-pension-check and has had to tap a home-equity line of credit to fix her roof. [...]

Mr. Caggiano, who is 68, said in an interview he has no mortgage and that his girlfriend, who works full-time, has moved in. He says the couple recently traveled to Italy, and that he spent $60,000 to install hardwood floors, granite countertops and big windows "to get a beautiful view of the water." He keeps his accounting practice to a few clients: "I'm not going out there trying to develop new business."

Asked why he should receive alimony, Mr. Caggiano said he sees it as reimbursement for a time early in their marriage when he paid most expenses, including the down payments on the two homes that were divided at the divorce. Ms. Caggiano says she wants a court to modify her payments but can't afford an attorney.

 

[Disney Doll]

Not if I read it right, and I may not have. The child is the woman and her lovers, not the woman and her ex husbands.

No, I thought it said he said something like "I know I have a responsibility to my daughter" or something like that, so maybe they have a child together too???

 

[pyrxtc]

It is about a man trying to evade his resposibilities. Until she gets married, he pays. That was the deal.

 

[Disney Doll]

Well, truthfully, I've never loved the whole alimony thing anyhow.

I wouldn't want to be dependent on my ex to provide for me. If I had to be dependent for a couple or a few years until I was able to get back on myfeet and/or get educated, I guess that would be fine. But to be accepting alimony from someone to whom I was married many years ago...no thanks, I can take care of my self.

 

[declansdad]

It is about a man trying to evade his resposibilities. Until she gets married, he pays. That was the deal.

He is not trying to shirk his responsibilities. His argument that over time the situation has changed. Once upon a time, the vast majority of people didn't live together until they were married. He is arguing that has changed; in this instance, his ex and her partner are living together as a married couple would. They co-habitate and are raising a child of their own together.

I think he has a good point and it is time for the courts to consider this type of situation.

 

[ChrizJen]

I agree that from a legal standpoint, he owes the money.

But I also think that the whole idea of alimony in this day and age is a crock. The idea comes from a time when women primarily stayed home to raise the children. Very few women received higher eduacation, and most had very few skills outside of housekeeping and child rearing. So most often, a woman was not able to find a job decent enough to support herself after a divorce. In that day and age, when it was uncommon for a woman to be able to support herself, it was appropriate for her to expect payments from her ex-husband. But now??? Not so much. I'm a woman, and I think it's absolutely greedy and insane for a woman to expect payment from an ex-husband. Women have equal access to education and jobs these days. Now certainly even in 2009, if a woman gets married right out of high school, never works a job, and stays home to raise the children, then I would expect the man to make payments. But I would also expect the woman at that point to get some sort of education or training and become independant. But for an educated, employed woman to expect her ex-husband to make payments to her is shameful and ludacrous in my opinion.

Now child support...that's another issue. Any non-custodial parent, whether it be a mother or a father, should be expected to make child support payments. There's no excuse in the world for non payment of child support. None.