Comments on: Large Payment Awarded After 30 Years of Divorce

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:00:26 +0000

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.

By: Dave

Dave — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:46:38 +0000

“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.

By: Bob Smith

Bob Smith — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 21:12:27 +0000

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.

By: Dick

Dick — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 15:45:43 +0000

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.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:44:52 +0000

Are the English courts trying to be more American with decisions like this?

By: cowpill

cowpill — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:10:44 +0000

I am so screwed……