soubriquet 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Here's a report in today's Torygraph "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. advertisement 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." How about that? Black is white and pink is blue. Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 "But Mrs North's counsel, Deborah Bangay QC, said it was not her client's fault that her investments had gone wrong " what a world this is. Link to post Share on other sites
yoroshiku onegai shimasu 2 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 I blame SJ. It's a sad world. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 I wish I could say "unbelievable", but I've been there I'm sure he could and would pay, but he's stuck his finger up and said "up yours". These parasites are like the Terminator. They never give up and never stop coming at you. How is it possible for a lawyer to get up on his hind legs and say she's not a greedy parasite coming back to the trough for a second serve? How would you like to be married to someone who lies for money? I wonder who teaches his children moral education? Link to post Share on other sites
spook 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Surely that will be quashed on appeal. Although I am flabbergasted as to how ANY judge could have ruled in her favour Link to post Share on other sites
snowboarding-sam 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 Perhaps he was one of the judges from Ally McBeal? Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 Originally Posted By: spook Surely that will be quashed on appeal. Although I am flabbergasted as to how ANY judge could have ruled in her favour You haven't been to the "Family Court". I have. I'm not surprised. Link to post Share on other sites
Rag-Doll 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 It certainly looks like an odd decision but just possibly there might be more to this than has been set out in the report - facts ruining a good story and all that. > 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. This section suggests it wasn't a simple case of the ex, having received a settlement once, coming back years later to have another go. Nor does it say that the first settlement was a court awarded settlement. This suggests that there was a history of the guy providing support/funds which may well have created an expectation that the funds would continue to flow. The merit of the claim is probably quite questionable, hence the low amount (compared to the guy's total net worth) of the settlement but not as absurd as the article would indicate. Possibly, with the court granted settlement and the finality of the process, he will be better off in the long run. Having paid the court awarded settlement he may well now be completely free of any moral/emotional imperative to keep funding the ex that he has clearly been subject to in the past. Oh, and Soubs I know feel you've been hard done by and I would probably feel the same way in your position, but simply by acting as an advocate for a claimant doesn't make a person morally reprehensible. It might not seem like a good thing to do, but a world where advocates elect to act for people based on their own moral views of the claim's merit would be far worse. On judges generally - An interesting study was done recently to compare how members of the public would punish crimes as compared to the (supposedly soft on crime) judges. It was found that when given all of the facts - rather than just the interesting ones presented in the media - the people surveyed generally imposed more lenient sentences. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 Rag doll. Not going at lawyers, but sometimes "The Law" is absurd. He should have done what I did, and go for a final settlement, but he's a nice guy trying to do his best. No more. I have no fear of The Terminator. She's taken my family, my home, my career, my pension and my capital. There's nothing left. Thanks "Family Court". I like it here. Living with Soubriquette is fun. My boys like it too. Link to post Share on other sites
Rag-Doll 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Share Posted June 28, 2007 >I like it here. Living with Soubriquette is fun. My boys like it too. Mate, we should all be so lucky. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 28, 2007 Author Share Posted June 28, 2007 You are prepared to represent the lying discutsting filth for money. Teach your children morals Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 soubs, that's your meds talking. Q) what's the difference between a catfish and a lawyer? A) One is a bottom dwelling scum sucking lowlife, the other is a fish. RD, no offence intended. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
Rag-Doll 0 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Originally Posted By: soubriquet You are prepared to represent the lying disgusting filth for money. Teach your children morals Mmmm, not really sure what you're getting at there Soubs. My last post was more of a, good on you and I'm glad things are good for you. Given the angst you've had you probably deserve it. But anyway, I don't think the fact the woman's seemly unjust claim succeeded was the fault of the lawyers, particularly given the limited detail in the article. The court obviously thought the claim had some merit. Then again, I haven't worked in family law. Thursday, mate no offence taken. I reckon the public dislike for lawyers is the funniest thing about those jokes. It's a bit of an American thing that the English speaking world has picked up. All my lawyer friends are transactional lawyers, which means no court work, no angst or heart ache, few (if any) disputes. If anything our main concern is finding middle ground for negotiating parties so that everybody wins. We're the good guys! Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 Sorry Rag-Doll. No offense meant to you (truly). I just wonder how people can take money for arguing black is white.. Again, apologies, I don't want to be offensive. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 I'm still being drilled by my ex- There's no money left so she's denying me access. Her lawyer is taking her money to deny me contact with my children. Link to post Share on other sites
Rag-Doll 0 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 Originally Posted By: soubriquet Her lawyer is taking her money to deny me contact with my children. That's about as ****ed-up as you can get. I have met a few people in litigation who are not particularly bothered by the merits of a particular dispute or that a dispute ought to be determined according to the facts, so long as they win the argument. The ugliest form of competitiveness I can imagine. I'm sure there are more than a few of those types in family law as well. It's like they're drawn to it by the chance to win an argument not to improve people's lives. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 I think they must see stuffing peoples lives as a game. That's detachment for you. Life in the abstract. I can't do that. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 29, 2007 Author Share Posted June 29, 2007 Sorry all, I'm straying into no-no territory here. I booked my boys to come next month for their winter holidays. Immediately there were ishoos. They aren't coming. Not this winter either. Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted June 29, 2007 Share Posted June 29, 2007 News on Japan is leading today with "100,000 Japanese-Filipino kids get no support from Jap dads". Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 It's a root for a visa. Does that meke them whores? Link to post Share on other sites
thursday 1 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 Besides being a route for a visa (much better life), there are many rural Japanese farmers who are without spouses and looking further afield as the domestic stock have turned to looking down upon them and thus would only marry city or township men. There are many Chinese wives of Japanese farmers. That does not make them whores but rather a win-win for those concerned. Good luck to them. Link to post Share on other sites
soubriquet 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Author Share Posted June 30, 2007 It is very common here. The brides are usually Korean or Phillipina, although some are Chinese. There's a mountain village nearby where all the women are from the Phillipines. I'm the only Caucasian mail-order groom. It's win-win for us too. Link to post Share on other sites
bushpig 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 You big old whore, you! Link to post Share on other sites
SirJibAlot 0 Posted June 30, 2007 Share Posted June 30, 2007 caucasian mail order groom - funny... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts