Other Woman sues ex husband for more money - 15 years after divorce

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-surrey-38891663

Unless I am missing something - this is truly shocking; like WTF shocking.

She blew £230k , then went after him - 15 years after they split up for more money , and the court granted this?

 

Whilst I'm sure there's more nuance to the story than the few paragraphs detail, this, particularly the quotes, really gives me sads :/

 

she has had over £400k from him since 2002 oO

 

I have absolutely no idea how these things work and they scare me beyond belief… So she’s already got money from the divorce but 15 years later down the line she sues him for more money? Unless new information came out about the first settlement which should of been mentioned at the first hearing, this is freaking ridiculous.

My situation for example i have kids with ex partner (never married) always had the kids 50% of the time without fail. Always paid for the kids clothes and uniforms but now if she seen that i was doing well for myself (when not being crashed into by lorries and having no insurance of course which is now sorted.) she could typically take me to court find out my income and claim absolutely loads of my income for… having the kids? Not only would i have to provide for the kids which i’m doing anyway i’d have to basically bankroll her which is absolutely crap.

 

Crazy and deeply unfair.

The only reason she hasn't got any money is because she made bad investments and lost the money she had.

Well so I am lead to believe by the story.

 

As I say, I'm sure there's more nuance than the story suggests. The writer seems to have decided that the woman should be vilified, and just went from there. I certainly hope it's slanted anyway, because I don't want to think that the to be a stupid, greedy, entitled character that's being painted is geting away with it

The thing that upsets me most though is that the BBC deems it newsworthy. Aren't things like this supposed to be for the Mail and Sun?

 

The premise of divorce is that the man (or one party these days I suppose) should not financially benefit from the divorce. So if one spouse supports the other during the marriage, that support should continue after the divorce. If those payments didn't continue after divorce, the party making those payments (of sorts) during the marriage would gain financially from the divorce because they would no longer have to support their spouse.

Now I don't agree with this but that is the way it is. Bottom line is don't get married and ensure you opt out of any implicit agreements that the state may put in place on your behalf during a relationship. An implicit agreement that can leave you on the hook for alimony even though you aren't married is something that happens, but I'm not sure if it is something that happens in Britain or not.

 

She's a gold digger and nothing more, I feel sorry for the ex and any other poor sod that marries her.

 

If your marriage is coming to an end, you need to make sure your soon-to-be-ex-wife won't be in a position to make any claim against you. And, do whatever you need to do carefully, so the Police can't pin anything on you...

 

Yeah for sure WTH!!!!!! It is wrong in so many diffrent ways!!

 

But 'Muric-england....

We're getting more and more like them by the day.

 

Make Mercia Great Again!