The Parlour divorce case

[rach 1]

Seen this? Very interesting. Mr Parlour, a football player (/thug) playing for Arsenal has to cough up tonnes of cash in his divorce.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3890507.stm

[giggsy 0]

Check it out!

 

---

 

Karen Parlour, ex-wife of Arsenal star Ray Parlour, is entitled to receive one third of his future earnings to acknowledge the role she played in his success, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

 

What does this ruling mean?

 

For the Parlours, it means that the personal maintenance award of £250,000 a year, made in the High Court in January, will be upped to £406,500 pa, to run for four years, when it will be reviewed.

 

It is likely that future payments, after the four-year period, will be reduced in line with a predicted fall in Ray Parlour's earnings.

 

What was the judges' decision based on ?

 

Lord Justice Thorpe made it plain that the ruling had been made because, in the case of the Parlours - and one other case on which they gave judgment on Wednesday - there was a huge excess of income left over after taking into account Mrs Parlour's maintenance needs.

 

It was "discriminatory and wrong ", said the judge, for the earner - in this case, Ray Parlour - to have sole control over that surplus during the next four years.

 

Who will it affect ?

 

It will apply only to cases where an earner's income is so high that, even after both party's reasonable needs and those of the children are taken into account, there is a still a substantial surplus.

 

In the vast majority of divorces, a wife's entitlement to annual maintenance payments will continue to be assessed on her need.

 

And matrimonial assets - a car, house etc - will continue to be split 50-50.

 

What are the wider implications ?

 

Since an important law lords judgment in 2000, wives of high earners have won substantially increased maintenance awards in a string of cases.

 

Now, there will be an expectation that they can share equally in a spouse's future earnings.

 

But the wording of the Parlour judgment makes it plain that it should not be seen as a carte blanche for spouses to live the high life on their extra income.

 

They will be expected to make provisions, through prudent investment or setting up a business, for their future.

 

Is this likely to affect the way high earners approach marriage ?

 

Because of the higher awards being made by the courts, the US idea of the pre-nuptial agreement has become more common in the UK.

 

This applies to couples where one partner's income substantially exceeds the other.

 

The courts here are not legally bound to accept such agreements, but in practice, judges tend to adhere to the terms of the agreement if each partner has received independent legal advice when the contract was drawn up.

 

Expect to see a fresh impetus for pre-nuptials in the wake of the Parlour judgment.

[sunrise 0]

I don't know, it just doesn't look fair, regardless of the character of the person in question (who I know nothing about). A fair settlement, as long as it doesn't clean out the guy, fine. I know it's certainly must be hard to be a single or divorced mum. But future earnings? As long as she's getting decent child support, Is it fair? If I were a guy I'd be very worried about getting married. I know some divorced dads who are really seeing the rough end of the stick due to losing (or giving away) houses in childcare settlements, etc.... One has been married twice, lost a house both times, but only the second time were there any kids involved. Now the ex wives both have houses and he's currently renting. He swears he'll never marry again. Childcare support is definitely important, but ex-wife support unless she's still supporting the kids doesn't seem fair. And what if there are no kids? What then? Would this still apply?

[miteyak 0]

It's not a male/female thing par se, but equitable distribution of assets based on equal input into the relationship.

 

Take the example, wifey gives up marketing executive job so lawyer hubby can focus on career whilst wifey raises kids. He runs off with his secretary after ten years.

 

Wifey could have made a million in that time, and a million more in the ensuing ten years, but her commitment to her marraige put paid to that, both past and future, getting back into the game would be very hard, esp. whilst still raising kids.

 

If you see marriage as a casual whim, the rulings can seem harsh, but if you see it as a contract for life, one in which one bases decisions about one's future that wouldn't be considered without it, then I think rulings like the above are necessary.

 

Marriage is a business contract in which you put your property and earnings down as collateral. It's not like one doesn't promise to look after the other person til death, eh?

[Ocean11 0]

> It's not like one doesn't promise to look after the other person til death, eh?

 

Oh but miteyak, nobody takes any notice of silly old pledges like that anymore do they?

[miteyak 0]

I bet Sunrise's friend does now...

[sunrise 0]

equal distribution, yes, but that article was looking a little unequal to me. Still miteyak, your point about wife giving up well paid good job is well taken and I agree with it - however..... this is not to say that wife gives up work in all cases of payout. I would also imagine that Mrs Parlour, having been married to a (current) soccer star is likely to still be reasonably young unless he married an older woman. Of course this also means that if she has kids (which the article seems to point to) they'd still be pretty young too, in which case working mum with young kids is difficult. But - there's settlement and then there's "over-settlement".

 

By the way, my friend was never the type to take marriage flippantly. He was in there for the long haul, but the relationships just didn't work out over long term. It happens.

[scouser 4]

I never thought I'd do this.....link to the Arse-nal site:

 

http://www.arsenal.com/player.asp?plid=1622&clid=3&title=Ray+Parlour+Player+Profile

[miteyak 0]

I was just taking the cheap shot I saw, no offence intended...

[sunrise 0]

No worries miteyak, I didn't take it that way at all (there didn't seem to be an appropriate emot-icon to add in my last post to let you know that), I thought in the light of the discussion it was relevant to point out that men can wind up victimized from divorce payouts.

[NoFakie 45]

By the sound of things. Ray Parlour was a young pro not far off the Arsenal first team when he met his wife. The chances of a footballer getting that far are miniscule. I can't understand how his wife could have made the kind of huge contribution to his career she is being attributed with. It sounds like the judge does not understand how football works.

 

It must be a massive disincentive for him to try anymore, but at least he's still better off than the average divorcee. A friend of mine came over to Japan to work for a year, only for his wife to have an affair and announce her plans for divorce via an international phone call. He lost the house too. He's now mortaged up to his nads on a small flat.

[bobby12 0]

I am gonna get a pre-nuptial!

 

No flies on me!

[scouser 4]

Parlours not got that many more years in him though now anyway I don't think..

[stripper on coke 0]

bobby12, I'm sure I read in one of the articles about this issue, that the judge can over-rule a pre-nuptial agreement.

 

maybe it's just in high-profile cases when that happens or something.

 

while I can see and understand the wifies side of things, surely being entitled to half of all his future earnings is pushing it a bit.......

 

[rach 1]

Certainly seems to be doesn't it.