She Squanders Her Divorce Settlement, so He Has to Pay Her Again–30 Years Later!
Several 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.
|
| More from Glenn Sacks
Stumble It!
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
What a dissembling ruling! The judge is just making sure that the government won’t have to help her out.
Take whatever recourse is available and get that judge ousted.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:16 am
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
(ref)
If you still have a doubt that modern Feminism has taken up a marriage of convenience with old-fashioned Marxism, then you haven’t been paying attention.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:37 am
It simple really women have always been told” act as socially.legally,morally and in this ladys case, financially irresponsible” and we the system will take care of you. After all you gave us,( the system) all this lovely power, by behaving this way.
They can’t stop, why IF women were suddenly held to the same standard that men have always been held to, then they might grow up. The theives who run the family court system might have to get a real job. Hells Bells they might even be prosecuted for what they done. I can see it now, these one mightly bastards, trembling with fear, because they are the ones on trial. They are guilty and we won’t pat them on the head, they will go down hard and finally be broken of their ” thieving habits” I , for one, will laugh when this happens.
July 3rd, 2007 at 10:38 am
wow,,, just wow,,
wouldn’t that make you want to puke…??
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:17 pm
Imagine if the gender roles were reversed…
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Because Family Court operates in secrecy, I suspect that there is more injustice occurring than is reported.
The developer husband’s PR staff probably had the item leaked to the press. I doubt the Judge, Clerk or Bailiff, or the wife notified to the press.
Because the husband was successful and a millionaire, the press ran the story.
Because children and families are involved, family courts ought to report their judgments.
July 3rd, 2007 at 12:39 pm
If it floats, flies, or F%@^&S lease it. Boats, Airplanes and Women are alike said a friend of mine. The best day of your life is when you get anyone of the three and the next best day is when you get rid of it.
It looks like you can’t get rid of a wife if you are rich and she ends up poor. She doesn’t have your work ethics or talent so you get richer, she gets poorer, but hey, you did share time, sex, life with her once so you owe her forever?
The courts think they are just redistributing wealth but they are supporting treating women like infants and men like parents to women. I am sure the judge found many men and women to support his position. Few see the bigger picture where men become afraid to marry and women learn that there is always help available – like a pick pocket reaching into a rich man’s wallet to get what he was unable to earn. If a judge treated a case where it was the man coming back for more of HER money he would be laughed at and he might lose his job.
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Mike LaSalle wrote:
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”
No, it’s: From each according to his ability, to each according to HER need”
July 3rd, 2007 at 1:17 pm
What does the guy get out of this again?
Will the court order her to perform wife duties – cook, clean, grocery shop?
Wait. Feminists claim those women are slaves of men if they perform household chores, as I am told that wives now compete in the marketplace.
Equal right have not trickled down to family courts from higher courts, however, I do not hear one feminist’s protest.
July 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 pm
“If you still have a doubt that modern Feminism has taken up a marriage of convenience with old-fashioned Marxism, then you haven’t been paying attention.”
NYET
July 3rd, 2007 at 7:01 pm
That’s Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels on a Soviet postage stamp celebrating the 100th anniversery of their Communist Manifesto.
July 3rd, 2007 at 11:36 pm
Saying “I Do” now means —
I DO agree to be a wage-slave for the rest of my life, to be exploited and extorted for money, all my property, my inheritance, my dreams and my soul…
I DO agree that my life is over, should my vampire “soulmate” desire it.
I have agreed to lease a toxic vagina.
The contract is terminal.
True luv?
July 4th, 2007 at 12:56 am
Blame Marx if you want. Blame feminism if you want. But the ONE to blame – and deal with – is the fuckweasel JUDGE.
Judges will start to exercise fair judgement when they are fewer and a lot of ex-Judges have met up with some men’s inner Darren!
It will happen. A visit from the Tailor and a fitting for a full metal jacket will concentrate the minds of the others wonderfully.
Iknow…. I know, Mike. I don’t advocate it, but the tide of history will see a lot of men take back justice and dole it out themselves.
July 4th, 2007 at 1:00 am
PS. Mrs North’s counsel, Deborah Bangay QC, could do with some wardrobe alterations too. Fat-cat lawyers need extra buttonholes.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:53 am
The whole purpose of divorce is to disentangle people so they can lead independent lives,” he told the three judges.
No, the whole purpose of divorce is for lawyers and judges and other whores of the court to get rich while selfish and irresponsible women cash in their vaginas and hold out the children as mutilated beggars, and making the sham of justice continue to work depends on people going along with the idea that having a penis means you have no rights.
Or, in simpler terms, divorce is where men are held responsible for women’s irresponsibilty because he once had sex with her.
If a story like this doesn’t wake up men in general from their disillusionment about women as victims and what a joke our judiciaries have become, then nothing will.
July 4th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
why do judges need all that education, if it really is an education they are getting in the femiratholes they are attending? I mean look, any high school idiot can do this stuff nowadays.
EXAMPLE:
all rise. judge high school harry presiding.
1st up – divorce. easy one give woman all, take all from man.
what else does she want? OK. manpay that too. Restraining order needed? OK.
no contact w/ children and the rest.
next
DV (EASIEST OF ALL) – man goes to jail, give woman literature, maybe money, etc., etc,
next
woman shoots man and blows him outside home w/ shotgun. man barely alive.
this one is a little harder – HMMMM. YES I HAVE IT. charge man w/ leaving scene. DV by him? wait till he gets better before you pick him up. might look bad.
does she need some counseling? No? OK. Probation then let ‘er go.
hs harry to himself- man this is some good job. how much did they say i would make? i need a sandwich and a nap. got those private quarters, sweet. sounds like break time to me. maybe 9 holes.
give me that hammer. court ajorned till 4:00.
daveinga: hey folks, this is about what we are getting now.
why all the education & respect if there are no precepts or ethics.
heck i bet a cave man could do it.
happy Independence Day!
July 5th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Here is some advice from across the pond:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Signed by John Hancock, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Sam Adams, and a host of other Americans fed up with British pompous asses.
Methinks some British men ought to rid themselves of British pompous asses!
July 5th, 2007 at 9:05 am
Family judges (read: government) make divorce easy and profitable for woman. Men initially pay. Also because of the consequence society eventually pays.
I suspect that if marriage and divorce was not easy and profitable, family and relationships would be stronger.
It’s more difficult to get a driver’s license that a marriage license. The government’s schools (oublic schools) offer drivers education and sex education, but not marriage education.
The government hates family. It spends more time and resources on divorce, single mother rights and services, homo sex awareness, and abortion than family and fathers.