Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators
Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site
Divorce costs
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2858
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:58 pm
- Has thanked: 1385 times
- Been thanked: 3773 times
Divorce costs
I came across yet another example of the crazy legal costs incurred by people in divorce proceedings today. The husband was a Swedish guy, popularly known as Kenny Brack, who had been a racing driver. He retired from racing in 2003 after a spectacular crash in which he supposedly experienced the highest g-force ever experienced by a human being that survived.
The arguments were largely about whether pre-nuptial agreements were binding or not, and the main part of the report is probably only of interest to family lawyers - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2142.html
But this section caught my eye, and should act as a warning to anyone contemplating fighting their spouse through the divorce courts:
Costs
Following receipt of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, one might have hoped that the parties would have settled the case; it is not especially difficult. The parties' children were aged 8 and 12 when the case was before me in 2016. They are now respectively 12 and 16 and it is regrettable that their young lives will have been overshadowed by their parents' litigation.
The husband has now spent £1,003,959 on this litigation and expects to spend a further £301,000 by the time the case has finished (I should say that, by tragically sad circumstances, his original leading counsel is no longer available). The wife has spent £634,098 and expects to spend a further £185,000. This means that the parties' costs will total some £2,124,057.
In paragraph 19 of my 2016 Judgment, I found that the assets in the case were £10,859,533. Although I have not received any up to date evidence about this, I imagine that the value of the assets which I identified at that time will have decreased, given the events which have overwhelmed the world since 2016.
This means that the parties have now spent at least 20% of their net worth litigating against each other. It would, I respectfully suggest, have been wiser to spend that money on each other and not on their excellent, but expensive, legal teams. It is, of course, a matter for them, but it would be hard to explain to that elusive "reasonable person" how they are where they are.
I'm afraid the best financial advice to any even moderately wealthy person remains that if your intended is a lot poorer than you are then don't do it, and settle for living in sin!
The arguments were largely about whether pre-nuptial agreements were binding or not, and the main part of the report is probably only of interest to family lawyers - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2142.html
But this section caught my eye, and should act as a warning to anyone contemplating fighting their spouse through the divorce courts:
Costs
Following receipt of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, one might have hoped that the parties would have settled the case; it is not especially difficult. The parties' children were aged 8 and 12 when the case was before me in 2016. They are now respectively 12 and 16 and it is regrettable that their young lives will have been overshadowed by their parents' litigation.
The husband has now spent £1,003,959 on this litigation and expects to spend a further £301,000 by the time the case has finished (I should say that, by tragically sad circumstances, his original leading counsel is no longer available). The wife has spent £634,098 and expects to spend a further £185,000. This means that the parties' costs will total some £2,124,057.
In paragraph 19 of my 2016 Judgment, I found that the assets in the case were £10,859,533. Although I have not received any up to date evidence about this, I imagine that the value of the assets which I identified at that time will have decreased, given the events which have overwhelmed the world since 2016.
This means that the parties have now spent at least 20% of their net worth litigating against each other. It would, I respectfully suggest, have been wiser to spend that money on each other and not on their excellent, but expensive, legal teams. It is, of course, a matter for them, but it would be hard to explain to that elusive "reasonable person" how they are where they are.
I'm afraid the best financial advice to any even moderately wealthy person remains that if your intended is a lot poorer than you are then don't do it, and settle for living in sin!
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 1917
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:26 pm
- Has thanked: 225 times
- Been thanked: 686 times
Re: Divorce costs
The husband was a Swedish guy, popularly known as Kenny Brack, who had been a racing driver
For one moment I thought I had read Swiss Tony.
T7
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 18685
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
- Has thanked: 628 times
- Been thanked: 6564 times
Re: Divorce costs
Clitheroekid wrote:I'm afraid the best financial advice to any even moderately wealthy person remains that if your intended is a lot poorer than you are then don't do it, and settle for living in sin!
That advice would have been well taken by John Cleese, whose 3rd divorce cost him 60% of his net worth.
When he met her, she was poor and living in a council flat. But at her divorce case she argued that she had become accustomed to dining in castles, and the like, and so was entitled to that lifestyle forever. Evidently the court accepted her argument. I believe that she got about $23,000,000. I would have awarded her £23.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/ce ... -eo2c.html
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4817
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
- Has thanked: 606 times
- Been thanked: 2676 times
Re: Divorce costs
Well foreigners spending their money on English lawyers is part of our 'invisible earnings' so well done to the lawyers as we don't export many physical products these days?
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4817
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
- Has thanked: 606 times
- Been thanked: 2676 times
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 18685
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
- Has thanked: 628 times
- Been thanked: 6564 times
Re: Divorce costs
scrumpyjack wrote:Well foreigners spending their money on English lawyers is part of our 'invisible earnings' so well done to the lawyers as we don't export many physical products these days?
I read somewhere that the UK is the global location of choice for anyone hoping to get the highest possible divorce judgement. So anyone who has any kind of British connection that entitles them to file for divorce in the UK will do so. We've even got the Americans beat at that. Finally something we are world leaders in. I'm so proud.
The easiest, quickest, cheapest place for a divorce is supposedly the Dominican Republic. Apparently the self-styled “divorce capital of the world” is no longer Reno, Nevada:
https://time.com/5783893/reno-divorce-history/
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7383
- Joined: February 7th, 2017, 9:36 pm
- Has thanked: 10514 times
- Been thanked: 4659 times
Re: Divorce costs
Clitheroekid wrote:I came across yet another example of the crazy legal costs incurred by people in divorce proceedings today. The husband was a Swedish guy, popularly known as Kenny Brack, who had been a racing driver. He retired from racing in 2003 after a spectacular crash in which he supposedly experienced the highest g-force ever experienced by a human being that survived.
The arguments were largely about whether pre-nuptial agreements were binding or not, and the main part of the report is probably only of interest to family lawyers - https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2020/2142.html
But this section caught my eye, and should act as a warning to anyone contemplating fighting their spouse through the divorce courts:
Costs
Following receipt of the Judgment of the Court of Appeal, one might have hoped that the parties would have settled the case; it is not especially difficult. The parties' children were aged 8 and 12 when the case was before me in 2016. They are now respectively 12 and 16 and it is regrettable that their young lives will have been overshadowed by their parents' litigation.
The husband has now spent £1,003,959 on this litigation and expects to spend a further £301,000 by the time the case has finished (I should say that, by tragically sad circumstances, his original leading counsel is no longer available). The wife has spent £634,098 and expects to spend a further £185,000. This means that the parties' costs will total some £2,124,057.
In paragraph 19 of my 2016 Judgment, I found that the assets in the case were £10,859,533. Although I have not received any up to date evidence about this, I imagine that the value of the assets which I identified at that time will have decreased, given the events which have overwhelmed the world since 2016.
This means that the parties have now spent at least 20% of their net worth litigating against each other. It would, I respectfully suggest, have been wiser to spend that money on each other and not on their excellent, but expensive, legal teams. It is, of course, a matter for them, but it would be hard to explain to that elusive "reasonable person" how they are where they are.
I'm afraid the best financial advice to any even moderately wealthy person remains that if your intended is a lot poorer than you are then don't do it, and settle for living in sin!
Nope ... I don't get it at all. Get married loose the lot. Get divorced walk away with half. Sorry been swigging some falling down water
AiY
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
- Has thanked: 1638 times
- Been thanked: 3796 times
Re: Divorce costs
AsleepInYorkshire wrote:Nope ... I don't get it at all. Get married loose the lot. Get divorced walk away with half. Sorry been swigging some falling down water
AiY
Who was that American comedian who acerbically declared (something along the lines of) "I'm not getting married again. This time, I'm going to short-cut the process... I'm going to just find a woman I don't like and give her my house..." ?
He'd probably been on the falling down water too!
-
- The full Lemon
- Posts: 10693
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
- Has thanked: 1460 times
- Been thanked: 2965 times
Re: Divorce costs
It's not remotely comparable to Jarndyce.
You misspelled "Litigation Costs" in the title of this thread. Someone remind me of Dickens's words about enduring any injustice rather than feeding that beast!
You misspelled "Litigation Costs" in the title of this thread. Someone remind me of Dickens's words about enduring any injustice rather than feeding that beast!
-
- Lemon Slice
- Posts: 386
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:45 pm
- Has thanked: 77 times
- Been thanked: 270 times
Re: Divorce costs
From the Uxridge English dictionary:
Bachelor (n) A man who hasn't made the same mistake once
Bachelor (n) A man who hasn't made the same mistake once
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8066
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2847 times
- Been thanked: 3939 times
Re: Divorce costs
Mike4 wrote:Who was that American comedian who acerbically declared (something along the lines of) "I'm not getting married again. This time, I'm going to short-cut the process... I'm going to just find a woman I don't like and give her my house..." ?
Guess again, it was Rod Stewart. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rod_stewart_188864 . Another fan of the falling down water!
BJ
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 8066
- Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:30 pm
- Has thanked: 2847 times
- Been thanked: 3939 times
Re: Divorce costs
UncleEbenezer wrote:Someone remind me of Dickens's words about enduring any injustice rather than feeding that beast!
Brings to mind an old German cartoon I once saw. The judge is mopping his mouth as he delivers his verdict. "It was an excellent oyster. The court awards each party half of the shell."
BJ
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
- Has thanked: 1638 times
- Been thanked: 3796 times
Re: Divorce costs
bungeejumper wrote:Mike4 wrote:Who was that American comedian who acerbically declared (something along the lines of) "I'm not getting married again. This time, I'm going to short-cut the process... I'm going to just find a woman I don't like and give her my house..." ?
Guess again, it was Rod Stewart. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/rod_stewart_188864 . Another fan of the falling down water!
BJ
No I wasn't guessing, I got it from an American comedian I saw about 30 years ago on the telly. Thing is, did that nice Mr Stewart see the same telly programme I wonder, or did the American comedian hear Mr Stewart saying it?
I met Rod Stewart once. I was buying a sandwich for lunch in the deli in Sunningdale at the height of his fame, and who should I realise standing directly behind me in the queue was Rodney. Being in a nice well mannered area no-one in the shop bothered him except me, who after leaving the shop found my van blocked in by a fkcn great gold coloured Rolls Royce. Putting two and two together i returned to the sarnie shop and asked in a loud voice "does anyone in here own the gold Rolls Royce out here blocking me in?" .... guess who said "oh sorry mate, that's me. I'll come and move it immediately"..? Which he did. No hint of prima donna-ness, just came out and let me and my van out with much apology. I very much warmed to him from then on.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:25 pm
- Has thanked: 1171 times
- Been thanked: 1964 times
Re: Divorce costs
Lootman wrote:That advice would have been well taken by John Cleese, whose 3rd divorce cost him 60% of his net worth.
When he met her, she was poor and living in a council flat. But at her divorce case she argued that she had become accustomed to dining in castles, and the like, and so was entitled to that lifestyle forever. Evidently the court accepted her argument. I believe that she got about $23,000,000. I would have awarded her £23.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/ce ... -eo2c.html
I never realised JC was worth so much - thos corporate videos must pay well
Heather Mills got £24.3m from Paul McCartney when they parted after 39 months, though apparently spent it even quicker. One wag commented it worked out about £21k per night, adding "I'm obviously in the wrong job".
Paul
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
- Has thanked: 1638 times
- Been thanked: 3796 times
Re: Divorce costs
DrFfybes wrote:Lootman wrote:That advice would have been well taken by John Cleese, whose 3rd divorce cost him 60% of his net worth.
When he met her, she was poor and living in a council flat. But at her divorce case she argued that she had become accustomed to dining in castles, and the like, and so was entitled to that lifestyle forever. Evidently the court accepted her argument. I believe that she got about $23,000,000. I would have awarded her £23.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/ce ... -eo2c.html
I never realised JC was worth so much - thos corporate videos must pay well
Heather Mills got £24.3m from Paul McCartney when they parted after 39 months, though apparently spent it even quicker. One wag commented it worked out about £21k per night, adding "I'm obviously in the wrong job".
Paul
The thing they never tell you that I always find myself wondering, and which would put these awards into perspective, is how much the victim was worth at the point of the award being made. If JC and PMcC were each worth £25m those awards would seem harsh. But if they were still billionaires after paying out, then not so harsh at all.
Mind you, getting shot of Ms Mills was probably worth every penny, from what I'd read about her at the time.
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 4817
- Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
- Has thanked: 606 times
- Been thanked: 2676 times
Re: Divorce costs
Lootman wrote:That advice would have been well taken by John Cleese, whose 3rd divorce cost him 60% of his net worth.
When he met her, she was poor and living in a council flat. But at her divorce case she argued that she had become accustomed to dining in castles, and the like, and so was entitled to that lifestyle forever. Evidently the court accepted her argument. I believe that she got about $23,000,000. I would have awarded her £23.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/ce ... -eo2c.html
Yes the law really is an ass (sorry CK). You only have to read the obituary of Sir Jeremiah Harman in yesterday's paper (DT and Times). How that man ever became a High Court judge! A solicitor friend of mine, whose judgement I totally trust, told me he once had case before Mr Justice Harman and can confirm he was 'horrendous'.
-
- Lemon Half
- Posts: 7088
- Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
- Has thanked: 1638 times
- Been thanked: 3796 times
Re: Divorce costs
Lootman wrote:That advice would have been well taken by John Cleese, whose 3rd divorce cost him 60% of his net worth.
When he met her, she was poor and living in a council flat. But at her divorce case she argued that she had become accustomed to dining in castles, and the like, and so was entitled to that lifestyle forever. Evidently the court accepted her argument. I believe that she got about $23,000,000. I would have awarded her £23.
https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/ce ... -eo2c.html
Only just read your link. Nice to see from the article Mr Cleese still using his wonderful acerbic wit!
"He said of the outcome: "I got off lightly. Think what I'd have had to pay Alyce if she had contributed anything to the relationship." "
-
- Lemon Quarter
- Posts: 2311
- Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
- Has thanked: 207 times
- Been thanked: 592 times
Re: Divorce costs
DrFfybes wrote:Heather Mills got £24.3m from Paul McCartney when they parted after 39 months, though apparently spent it even quicker. One wag commented it worked out about £21k per night, adding "I'm obviously in the wrong job".
She actually sought £125 million !! McCartney offered her £15 million. The fact that she got 'little' more than McCartney's offer probably, at least partly, comes from the judge's comment that
15. The husband’s evidence was, in my judgment, balanced. He expressed himself moderately though at times with justifiable irritation, if not anger. He was consistent, accurate and honest.
16. But I regret to have to say I cannot say the same about the wife’s evidence. Having watched and listened to her give evidence, having studied the documents, and having given in her favour every allowance for the enormous strain she must have been under (and in conducting her own case) I am driven to the conclusion that much of her evidence, both written and oral, was not just inconsistent and inaccurate but also less than candid. Overall she was a less than impressive witness.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/p ... _mills.pdf
Return to “Legal Issues (Practical)”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests