British businessman Dennis North’s wife Jean left him 30 years ago after she began seeing another man. Their split became official in 1981, when they signed an agreement that granted Jean their house and income from rents on their various properties.
North went on to be a wildly successful businessman, while his ex-wife never worked. However, a judge has just ordered North to pay Jean a large lump-sum payment because she has “fallen on hard times” due to a number of money-losing investments:
Mr North, 70, has been ordered by a court to hand her another £202,000.
The order follows a series of big-money divorce cases which have swung the law against husbands and resulted in huge payments to ex-wives even after short childless marriages. The North case now threatens to make husbands pay large sums even decades after a split.
…
Existing English law gives ex-spouses who are receiving maintenance payments the ability to request a lump-sum payment instead. Jean’s attorneys believe she is entitled to this money, and state their case by responding to the odd “cherry” reference:
But Deborah Bangay, QC, for Mrs North, said: “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 the former husband.”
She said it was not Mrs North’s fault that her investments had gone wrong. The district judge’s award had been at the “bottom end of the spectrum”.
So, to recap: This woman destroys her marriage, never gets a job, lives well beyond her means, loses a ton of money in bad investments, then gets a large cash payment for her trouble? Think there’s a line of people willing to be her investment advisor?
6 Comments
I am so screwed……
Are the English courts trying to be more American with decisions like this?
I see the Brit’s are using our long standing legal tradition of assigning responsibility to those with the money. At least she didn’t sue the government for not preventing her from loosing all her money, like she would in this country.
Feminists have been campaigning for years to, in effect, make a husband his wife’s permanent slave. Here we see the campaign’s crowning achievement.
This surely couldn’t have any effect on marriage rates. Nope. None at all.
Feminists often decry men’s supposed “lack of commitment” while ignoring or denying their own culpability in promulgating policies like this.
“She said it was not Mrs North’s fault that her investments had gone wrong.”
Doesn’t appear to have been her ex-husbands fault either but it looks like she has managed to make it his problem. Must be wonderful to be able to back up and re-screw someone 26 years later cause you pissed away the first load of money you screwed them out of. Hope my ex doesn’t here about this.
Was Mrs. North receiving maintainance? Apparently not, so how would a lump-sum arrise? The present value of an annuity of zero dollars a month would be zero.
Did the case survive appeal?
I am reminded of the first Mrs. Carson who got a large annuity at the time of her divorce, which annuity was eaten up by inflation over the years.