Anyone on here divorced? Hang on to your nuts...

[British Bulldog]

It's high time the divorce laws evened up a bit in this country.

It's all far too much in favour of women.

It still miffs me that I divorced my ex cos she was in the wrong, then she still gets to retire on half my pension.

 

[looney]

I think they are entitled to the wad, theyve given the best years of their lives for the family so why not?


You cant make a financial contract that stems from a social relationship. Shadwell v Shadwell.

See I'm a f***ing lawyer now as well, i f***ing know everything.

 

[Robot Chicken]

What are they?
A pre-nuptial agreement (also known as a pre-marital agreement) is a written contract between a bride and groom-to-be that sets out to agree on how their assets are distributed (or remain theirs) should their marriage fail.

For many, the idea of entering into a marriage with a contract that deals with what happens in the event of the marriage failing seems to question their commitment to eachother. However, they are useful for marriages between couples where one has substantial wealth and the other does not.

Are they legal in the UK?
In the United Kingdom, pre-nuptial agreements currently have no legal standing. The divorce courts have the last word in the division of all matrimonial property and would ignore any pre-nuptial agreement if they thought that it was in any way unreasonable to either of the parties involved, particularly regarding to the maintenance and housing of children. For example, regardless of whose name a couple’s property is in, a court may order it to be transferred to the other. This applies to all property that is owned seperately or jointly

However, the rules for unmarried couples are quite different and legally binding contracts are enforceable so long as the couple remain unmarried. It is divorce that gives the courts jurisdiction to intervene and make orders. The widespread belief that long standing unmarried couples have rights as common law husband and wife is a myth.

The Future
For how long the current situation will remain is unclear. However, in February 1998, Geoffrey Hoon, the Parliamentary Secretary at the Lord Chancellor's Department, gave a boost to pre-nuptial agreements when he announced that there are "significant advantages" to legally binding pre-nuptial contracts. His comments were in the context of seeking ways in which the government can achieve savings in the huge legal aid bill and to reduce the time and stress involved in lengthy divorce court proceedings.

Although pre-nuptial agreements are not the answer to all divorce problems, there is consensus that for short, child-free marriages, they do have a distinct benefit.

Despite the government’s forward thinking, the pressure on the parliamentary timetable makes it unlikely that recognition of pre-nuptial contracts will make the statute books in the very near future. However, the matter does now seem to be firmly on the agenda as it is an area where the government can see better use of the tax-payer’s money.

 

[London Irish]

Mrs Parlour anyone ? What a grasping BITCH poor old Ray had to contend with there. Got the house (completely paid off), got half his money AND wanted a cut off all his future earnings.

I'd have signed for Aldershot just to SPITE her.

Bollocks - at least his money will go his strange frizzy-haired kids rather than being pissed up or gambled away.

 

[Robot Chicken]

Bollocks - at least his money will go his strange frizzy-haired kids rather than being pissed up or gambled away.

The cut of his future earnings is out of order. Simple as that.

 

[Easy 10]

Bollocks - at least his money will go his strange frizzy-haired kids rather than being pissed up or gambled away.

Two mortgage-free houses worth over a million squid, a £250k lump sum, plus £444,000 a year on top of the £37,500 annual lump sum he was already paying per year for each child.

Mrs Parlour was seen to be skipping from the courthouse, and later claimed a further £50,000 from Mr Parlour towards plastic surgeory to help have the fixed grin removed from her face.

 

[Easy 10]

WARNING: Do NOT under ANY circumstances marry this woman.

 

[Bakesy]

WARNING: Do NOT under ANY circumstances marry this woman.

Actually you are wrong.....Marry her, she is MINTED, get a divorse and take half of her wealth.SORTED.

 

[Easy 10]

Actually you are wrong.....Marry her, she is MINTED, get a divorse and take half of her wealth.SORTED.

*slaps forehead*

 

[London Irish]

WARNING: Do NOT under ANY circumstances marry this woman.

Yeah, I can see how you would be worried. Imagine having to give up half your porn collection in the divorce courts

 

[bhaexpress]

Yeah, I can see how you would be worried. Imagine having to give up half your porn collection in the divorce courts

Now that would be a stiff punishment.

 

[Superphil]

I know you're waiting for someone to say it, and you're enjoying what a windup this may be, but thats a complete and utter pile of TOSH and a generalisation if ever I saw one....

Firstly - even if you earned precisely f*** all, then you'd have to pay a percentage of f*** all, so you'd have lLESS than f*** all and would end up in prison!!

Getting a job and earning money?? I was dragged around the world, propping my ex up when it got hard and tiring, being his arm candy and being home for him with dinner and his Petrus when he needed, cigar at the ready... I eventually got jobs here there and everywhere but nothing like the potential I had. Decorating flats, moving our belongings and generally running a household in places miles from my home and family. So what do I get for that?? A big fat ZILCH?? I think not kemosabe!! and I didn't!!

Of course it's a generalisation, I'm talking about the kind of person who takes a huge amount of money, not your average divorce, where, all your comments about your own life are totally correct (I'm not suggestion yours was an average divorce etc).

The women on these judgements (sic) are already wealthy, they will now remain unbeleivably rich for the rest of their lives, and I find that unfair. The men involved may have been shits, but why not award the women a property in which they can live in their home town area, and some money based on the joint incomes, earnings and investments they had while married, then let them get on with their lives.

Comon, in the real world we have to go out and earn it, even if we lose it all, we have to go earn it again, women and men.

 

[tedebear]

Of course it's a generalisation, I'm talking about the kind of person who takes a huge amount of money, not your average divorce, where, all your comments about your own life are totally correct (I'm not suggestion yours was an average divorce etc).

The women on these judgements (sic) are already wealthy, they will now remain unbeleivably rich for the rest of their lives, and I find that unfair. The men involved may have been shits, but why not award the women a property in which they can live in their home town area, and some money based on the joint incomes, earnings and investments they had while married, then let them get on with their lives.

Comon, in the real world we have to go out and earn it, even if we lose it all, we have to go earn it again, women and men.

Ok, good clarification!!

 

[Easy 10]

Yeah, I can see how you would be worried. Imagine having to give up half your porn collection in the divorce courts

I think you must have me confused with some other poster