She Squanders Her Divorce Settlement, so He Has to Pay Her Again--30 Years Later!
July 3rd, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesSeveral of you sent me this amazing story--Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce. Get this:
Dennis North gets married and has three kids. His wife cheats on him and they get divorced. Dennis buys her a house and investments as part of the divorce settlement, and raises the three kids himself. Later, he pays her more money, even though she refuses to work. She squanders the money he gave her, and now, 30 years later, guess what? He has to pay her all over again because she's "fallen on hard times." Nice.
Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce
U.K. Telegraph, 6/28/07
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.
"));
19 queries. 0.331 seconds.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:22 am
This is a systematic way by the courts to squash religion.
Who would ever marry under these conditions?
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am
Eddie, take your tin foil hat off.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:01 pm
OK, maybe a bit conspiratorial, but, I'm reaching for understanding here.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:03 pm
I'm speechless.
This is no different from going to court because you need money and having them pick a stranger off the street to give it to you.
I can't believe this wasn't thrown out at the very beginning. In the US I think this would be called failure to state a cause of action.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
It's about time that they sacked or pensioned off Lord Justice Thorpe. If you read the various child custody cases as well as this one, you will see that he is involved in all of them. Judges say that they only interpret the law, but they have tremendous power to completely change law in an area by using back-reasoning and constructing a legal argument to reach a pre-conceived conclusion. He doubtless just felt sorry for her, particularly since it may not have been entirely her fault that she fell on hard time, but plenty of other people suffer the same fate and they can't go running to a court to bail them out.
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
I think Eddie is right, at least to some degree. I am 33 and I have pretty much come to the conclusion that I don't want to be married. Now, this has nothing to do with any stupid feminist assumption that I hate women. On the contrary, there are many women I know that are great people to me. However, there is too much risk in getting married these day for a man. There is a 50/50 chance of getting a divorce and the cost of divorce and possible spousal support is just too risky for me. I think that if I do ever consider getting married, I will definetly want a prenupual agreement to protect the assets that I have aquired.
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Guys, it isn't decided yet. It's just been heard at appeal. Thorpe, for all his recent big mouth over problematic internet romances as cover for betraying yet another father, hasn't shown his colors on this case yet. (Which probably means they're nervous of going either way - one way you upset the fems, the other way you look ridiculous, which would you prefer?)
This specific case notwithstanding, my beef with Eddie is the idea that it boils down to a conspiracy of the courts to destroy religion. I put this only slightly lower down the conspiracy theory rankings than the idea of a feminist conspiracy to destroy the family. Neither is the case. We live in times produced by the blind, unthinking application of several originally well-meaning ideologies. Sometimes this looks like a conspiracy, but it is not. There was never a cabal of people who got together and decided to destroy religion, declared that this was how to do it, then set about taking control of the courts in order to achieve it. 'Same goes for feminism and the family. Sure some cranks have voiced these ideas as if they thought they were a good idea, but by and large the halls of power are populated by people who are smart enough to identify a bad idea when it is presented so blatantly. On the other hand, very, very few people are capable to recognizing the negative consequences of their own well-meaning beliefs and actions. "The ends justify the means" ought to be the mantra of the human animal. Get enough of that together and you can generate any amount of idiocy.
The original ruling over the 200,000 pounds was probably the result of the literal interpretation of the law by a judge too craven to do the right thing. It remains to be seen how the highest powers in the land will comport themselves now.
July 3rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Yeah this certainly isn't a conspiracy, especially since -guess what- atheists get married too!
This is just an incompetent judge and an extreme miscarriage of justice.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:24 pm
Dang! Wish I had breasts. Work is so demeaning.
July 4th, 2007 at 12:50 am
As Tex said, it's no different than picking a "stranger of the street". We expect divorced people to be seen as strangers in the eyes of the law. This should certainly be the case but as it stands now, divorce only loosens the parameters of marriage. No matter who wins here, they have demonstrated this nicely.
July 4th, 2007 at 1:05 am
I misread the article. Lord Justice Thorpe did not make the award to the wife - he is one of the judges hearing the appeal. Given his past record though I think ~i know which way he is likely to go - although there are two other judges who could outvote him.
July 4th, 2007 at 4:11 am
What really bothers me in these cases is the size and scope of the bigotry dumped onto fathers with custody. Can you imagine any court awarding more than a pittance to a non-custodial father? It wouldn't matter how rich the custodial mother is, he'd get only a few dollars. YET! When it is a father with custody, then all bets are off and the courts can give her almost anything.
There are cases where the reason he has the kids is her violence and the courts give her total support. You'd never see a wife-batterer getting money out of a battered woman, but the courts are more than happy to give a husband batterer everything she wants.
There are multiple cases where the kids go hungry so she can have a nice lifestyle. It is perversion of everything our society is supposed to stand for.
July 4th, 2007 at 9:20 am
She is a child herself and expects to be treated as such, and hopes the judges agree.
If it wasn't for the fact that she probably will get the money this would be funny, amazing how low people will go.
Marriage becomes more dangerous every day!
July 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
This is typical.
July 4th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
"Marriage becomes more dangerous every day!"
This case is a bit more chilling than the dangers posed by marriage.
When one takes into account the state's complicity in enforcing child support to men whose names were picked out of phone-books by single mothers signing on to welfare, a pattern begins to emerge.
The state has erected a welfare system that grows faster than its ability to tax and fund, so it resorts to other methods.
Historically an over-spending state printed more money, but with too many eyes watching inflation, this option is now limited.
Burdening individual men who have only a tenuous relationship with a female in need of welfare, is what we're seeing here. The state relieves itself of a growing cost, and at the same time ingratiates itself with the majority of the electorate (women). The incentive is just too delicious to pass up, consciously or otherwise.
Sooner or later a tax on unmarried, childless men above a certain age will be proposed, and we better be ready for it.
July 4th, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Rob is spot on. The concept of a childless tax sounds hilarious, but, other solutions, like sterlization, are an affront to religion and definitely have less of a chance than a ridiculous tax.
July 5th, 2007 at 4:10 am
George Carlin said it best and it really applies here " Instead of getting married....Just buy a house and give it to her".
A few years ago I would have said this is shocking.....Now I have to just shake my head in amazement. Poor women cant work.....her investments didnt pan out.....Of course she deserves more money from her nasty Ex-Husband whos worth millions.
Surprising (well not really) is that you see no women coming to this mans defense saying this is wrong. its just another example of women thinking they are "owed" something because they are women or were married.
Note ladies....Get over yourselves. We Have.
July 5th, 2007 at 7:05 am
Expected income after marriage must be reduced by the probability of divorce times the cost of divorce. The probability of divorce is around 50%; I've heard that the average decline in income after divorce is approximately 42%, so you should reduce your income by 21% if you do nothing to increase your earnings after marriage (there may be other terms in the mathematical expectation of income to offset these, though I am unaware of any).
July 9th, 2007 at 7:09 am
This scenario is truly frightening. When a divorce is granted, the marriage is broken and the individuals involved should not continue to have any obligations toward each other, financial or otherwise. Child support is understandable, since underaged children cannot support themselves. If it is possible for a man to be forced to pay support to a woman he has not had any involvement with in 30 years, then divorce should be outlawed altogether. He does not owe her anything. What about the man she left her husband for? Why is he not being forced to pay? Is it because he has a much smaller income and is therefore of no interest to the money-grubbing court? Imagine what kind of situation this could cause if such miscarriages of justice were allowed to spread around the world. Why would a man ever marry? He would be a fool to do so. The feminist regime is truly destroying the human race by literally enslaving half the population solely because one happens to be of the male gender. I have to agree with Rob Case's theory (above). I have no doubt that eventually there will be a tax placed on all men regardless of marital or parental status, who happen to be over a certain age in the future.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:27 am
It seems that women are immune from the concept known as "personal responsibility."
I will not believe that women are independent and equal until women stand up and start to fight the inequity that is leaning so heavily in their favor. Currently, the feminist groups do nothing.
When it comes to the legally-binding contract that is marriage, there is truly nothing in it for me.
July 26th, 2007 at 11:28 am
[...] In my blog post She Squanders Her Divorce Settlement, so He Has to Pay Her Again--30 Years Later! I [...]
October 13th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Good God help us all!
October 13th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
DrumWild Says:
July 9th, 2007 at 10:27 am
It seems that women are immune from the concept known as "personal responsibility."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They are coddled to believe that also.
My wife unbeknownst to me brought a rather large debt with her to our marriage… I brought ZERO. It took several years to catch up with ME. When the government took MY tax return to pay for HER debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I fought it and won but every year I have to file extra paperwork because of her debt. The IRS has a computer that is the envy of the world but it cannot distinguish between her and my earnings and SSI or is it not desired? Just think how many men do not realize that they can fight and win in this situation, thus paying for a debt that your wife caused before you even knew her and now they are paying that debt for her.
The worst of it is she believed that there was our money (my paycheck) and her money (her paycheck) and her family backed her. Then I said I refuse to pay her debt and there is no way that her entire check is going to her debts/bills or I will spend my entire check on myself (I will not pay utilities, for food, clothes, children’s needs. etc. either because she is not [ the point I wanted to impress upon them was completely lost])… SOOOO… that did not go over well either… I finally was able to make my point clear that our money and her money was unfair ...
March 23rd, 2008 at 8:01 pm
[...] Several of you sent me this amazing story– Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce . Get…. Dennis buys her a house and investments as part of the divorce settlement, and raises the three kids… on hard times." Nice. Court ordered payout 30 years after divorce U.K. Telegraph , 6/28/07… responsibility towards her. Since his divorce from his first wife, Mr North had prospered and his wealth… was left to bring up the three children of the marriage and has two children by his second wife, wantsShe Squanders Her Divorce Settlement, so He Has to Pay Her Again–30 Years Later! [...]