Jump to content

£48m divorce payout.


Parky
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/07/ndivorce07.xml

 

 

"An ex-wife who is defending a record £48 million divorce award against a challenge by her former husband will tell the Court of Appeal today that family assets should generally be divided equally between the breadwinner and the homemaker when a marriage breaks down.

 

Lawyers for Beverley Charman, 53, will argue that fairness demands an equal division of assets built up by the parties to a marriage.

 

Beverly and John Charman outside the High Court yesterday

Martin Pointer, QC, who will also represent Heather Mills McCartney in her forthcoming divorce, accepts that courts should still have some discretion in dividing a couple's assets."

 

Ridiculous imo. I see Macca is up next....His assets are close to One bilion....!!

 

Homemaker what is that about? Sit around drinking Gin and watching neighbours and maxing gold cards these witches. :knuppel2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the radio the other day the lawyer for the husband was saying that £20m should have been enough for 'living expenses'. What planet do these people live on where £20m isn't enough to live with?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the radio the other day the lawyer for the husband was saying that £20m should have been enough for 'living expenses'. What planet do these people live on where £20m isn't enough to live with?

 

Macca up next. Now HE should get fleeced. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of my favourite celebrity wife, the bride of wildenstein

 

http://www.parsiblog.com/PhotoAlbum/negar17/wildenstein.jpg

 

Can you guess what her hobby is?   :icon_biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of my favourite celebrity wife, the bride of wildenstein

 

http://www.parsiblog.com/PhotoAlbum/negar17/wildenstein.jpg

 

Can you guess what her hobby is?   :icon_biggrin:

 

Scrabble? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good comment on this very matter by India Knight in her latest Sunday Times column. Can't be arsed to find it though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Gemmill

So he's offered her £20m but she's holding out for £48m?  Greedy fucking bitch.

 

Re Wildenstein's hobbies - boxing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the couple were married a long time before the fortune was accumulated and she was awarded a lot less than 50% of the total value.

 

Heather Mills is a money grabbing bitch, but this lass brought up a family for 27 years and I think she's well entitled to what she was awarded.

 

It's always put on the wife..."well it's not like she'll go hungry", but then it's not like he will either is it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of my favourite celebrity wife, the bride of wildenstein

 

http://www.parsiblog.com/PhotoAlbum/negar17/wildenstein.jpg

 

Can you guess what her hobby is?   :icon_biggrin:

 

Scrabble? :D

 

 

Watching Bo Selecta?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the couple were married a long time before the fortune was accumulated and she was awarded a lot less than 50% of the total value.

 

Heather Mills is a money grabbing bitch, but this lass brought up a family for 27 years and I think she's well entitled to what she was awarded.

 

It's always put on the wife..."well it's not like she'll go hungry", but then it's not like he will either is it?

 

From what I heard on the radio he claimed that a large amount of the money wasn't actually 'theirs' but 'his' alone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the couple were married a long time before the fortune was accumulated and she was awarded a lot less than 50% of the total value.

 

Heather Mills is a money grabbing bitch, but this lass brought up a family for 27 years and I think she's well entitled to what she was awarded.

 

It's always put on the wife..."well it's not like she'll go hungry", but then it's not like he will either is it?

 

From what I heard on the radio he claimed that a large amount of the money wasn't actually 'theirs' but 'his' alone.

 

With this ring I thee wed, and all my worldly goods I thee endow isn't legally binding, but I think it's an ethos that should stand.

 

Mebeez I'm living in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the couple were married a long time before the fortune was accumulated and she was awarded a lot less than 50% of the total value.

 

Heather Mills is a money grabbing bitch, but this lass brought up a family for 27 years and I think she's well entitled to what she was awarded.

 

It's always put on the wife..."well it's not like she'll go hungry", but then it's not like he will either is it?

 

From what I heard on the radio he claimed that a large amount of the money wasn't actually 'theirs' but 'his' alone.

 

With this ring I thee wed, and all my worldly goods I thee endow isn't legally binding, but I think it's an ethos that should stand.

 

Mebeez I'm living in the past.

 

I'd tend to agree with you, but obviously divorces are rarely easy to agree on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That reminds me of my favourite celebrity wife, the bride of wildenstein

 

http://www.parsiblog.com/PhotoAlbum/negar17/wildenstein.jpg

 

Can you guess what her hobby is?   :icon_biggrin:

 

Scrabble? :D

 

 

Watching Bo Selecta?

 

She really should've done something about her neck.  It's a dead give away she's had some sort of procedure  :icon_biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the couple were married a long time before the fortune was accumulated and she was awarded a lot less than 50% of the total value.

 

Heather Mills is a money grabbing bitch, but this lass brought up a family for 27 years and I think she's well entitled to what she was awarded.

 

It's always put on the wife..."well it's not like she'll go hungry", but then it's not like he will either is it?

 

Maybe I'm missing some delicate irony but.....the Wildenstein wealth was all inherited and I doubt she has ever lifted a finger to do anything beyond directing her servants and planning her next excellent surgical procedure.  She claimed at the original trial that it would be impossible to survive without a phalanx of servants (presumably to run through the house hiding the mirrors as she moves from room to room), thus needing a huge amount of money to keep the whole damn party going  :tongue2:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the couple were married a long time before the fortune was accumulated and she was awarded a lot less than 50% of the total value.

 

Heather Mills is a money grabbing bitch, but this lass brought up a family for 27 years and I think she's well entitled to what she was awarded.

 

It's always put on the wife..."well it's not like she'll go hungry", but then it's not like he will either is it?

 

Maybe I'm missing some delicate irony but.....the Wildenstein wealth was all inherited and I doubt she has ever lifted a finger to do anything beyond directing her servants and planning her next excellent surgical procedure.  She claimed at the original trial that it would be impossible to survive without a phalanx of servants (presumably to run through the house hiding the mirrors as she moves from room to room), thus needing a huge amount of money to keep the whole damn party going  :tongue2:

 

I was talking about the charman couple, not that hound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the couple were married a long time before the fortune was accumulated and she was awarded a lot less than 50% of the total value.

 

Heather Mills is a money grabbing bitch, but this lass brought up a family for 27 years and I think she's well entitled to what she was awarded.

 

It's always put on the wife..."well it's not like she'll go hungry", but then it's not like he will either is it?

 

From what I heard on the radio he claimed that a large amount of the money wasn't actually 'theirs' but 'his' alone.

 

With this ring I thee wed, and all my worldly goods I thee endow isn't legally binding, but I think it's an ethos that should stand.

 

Mebeez I'm living in the past.

 

I'd tend to agree with you, but obviously divorces are rarely easy to agree on.

 

There should be some upper limit on these payouts. Especially in the cases where the marriage has only lasted a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...