Dale Vince ex-wife wins divorce cash battle


World | 206817 hits | Mar 11 4:43 am | Posted by: martin14
20 Comment

A woman wins a landmark Supreme Court bid to claim cash from her millionaire ex-husband 20 years after they divorced.

Comments

  1. by avatar martin14
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 11:47 am
    20 years after, the ex-wife sues because now ex-hubby has money.

    And wins ! :roll:

    It's not a 20 year fight, it's a new case launched in 2011.

    Yogi, be happy you don't live in the UK ! :lol:


    The younger lads on this site;

    Don't get married, it's just asking for trouble. :)

  2. by avatar uwish
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:32 pm
    what a pile of shit, you can't have it both ways, you can't end a relationship, have almost nothing to do with the other person until, suddenly one day decide to become a raving luny AFTER HE BECAME RICH.

    I don't care what her story is, she isn't entitled to squat!

  3. by avatar 2Cdo
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:39 pm
    "uwish" said
    what a pile of shit, you can't have it both ways, you can't end a relationship, have almost nothing to do with the other person until, suddenly one day decide to become a raving luny AFTER HE BECAME RICH.

    I don't care what her story is, she isn't entitled to squat!


    True enough, but I bet she still walks out with some substantial coin. :?

  4. by avatar uwish
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 3:41 pm
    then I would be going to jail I don't care what the court said, I wouldn't pay her shit.

  5. by avatar stratos
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:03 pm
    If my ex ever tired to pull this shit she would not get a freaking dime. Like uwish said I would pay her shit.

  6. by avatar Tricks
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:36 pm
    Wow.

  7. by Thanos
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:47 pm
    Read the fine print and it seems more like some absentee rich-guy dad shafting the woman who raised his kid for him trying to get out of contributing his fair share towards the work that she did. 2 million quid from a guy worth over a hundred million is squat. Seriously, find someone better to defend than some tech hipster who walked away from his own child when he was obviously more than capable of making his required support payments but just didn't feel like doing it.

  8. by avatar ShepherdsDog
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:54 pm
    If he was ordered by the courts to pay child and spousal support originally(based on his income at the time), and didn't then she should get all that was owed to her plus interest.....based on the original ruling. Not a penny more.

  9. by avatar andyt
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 4:59 pm
    Lord Wilson said Ms Wyatt, who lived in Lowestoft, Suffolk, Sunderland and the Forest of Dean, had raised her son through "16 years of real hardship".

    Her claim was "legally recognisable" and not an "abuse of process", he said, although the �1.9m payout she had hoped to secure was too high an amount.

    "But there is, in our opinion, a real prospect that she will secure a comparatively modest award, perhaps of a size which would enable her to purchase a somewhat more comfortable, mortgage-free home."


    Sounds reasonable to me. The kid should also get something - help with schooling or such.

  10. by Thanos
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:05 pm
    It's been long established in divorce law that if a former spouse contributed to the success of their partner then they are entitled to an adequate compensation. If this woman was part of this tech-genius's beginnings, as well as raising his child for him, then she should get a lot more than the bare minimum. There's not something right here if she ended up in council housing with their child while this fucking guy's been schmoozing with the Kensington and Chelsea Cool Britannia crowd all these years. It sounds almost identical to that Joe Walsh TeaBircher asshole from Illinois who played up the Randroid self-made-man bullshit routine for the knuckle-draggers at the rallies while at the same time he racked up about $125K in unpaid child support to his ex-wife. This prick in Britain looks like he's cut from the same sort of cloth, i.e. just another selfish and indifferent rich shithead who absolutely does not deserve any of the sympathy a massaged and disingenuous media report is generating for him.

  11. by avatar Tricks
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 5:46 pm
    Where does it say he didn't pay child support that was mandated by the court? I must have missed it.

  12. by Thanos
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:12 pm
    gleep :oops:

  13. by avatar martin14
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 6:31 pm
    "Tricks" said
    Where does it say he didn't pay child support that was mandated by the court? I must have missed it.



    It doesn't.

    The whole point of the article was this suit was launched in 2011.


    All the BS of child support and alimony would have been sorted out.... in the 80's.

    Kid would be 30 something now.

    He didnt even start the company until 1995, long after things done.



    So now, 30 some years AFTER the divorce finalized, and AFTER the kid becomes an adult,

    she goes back to the trough.



    Sometimes, you gotta read the article. :lol:

  14. by avatar Tricks
    Wed Mar 11, 2015 9:34 pm
    "Thanos" said
    gleep :oops:

    ;)



view comments in forum
You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile