What’s a fair divorce settlement? Poll discussion

ceridwen

I'm a woman and I voted for 20% - purely because of providing a "wage" for her to have whilst finishing bringing up the children. If there were no children involved - I would have voted for nothing whatsoever.

I dislike golddigging (by either sex) and believe it would be a good idea for everyone to have a pre-nuptial contract before getting married/living together. Though I am aware that wouldnt stop some golddiggers having a go anyway - but hopefully it would make it less likely they would win.

I am making certain assumptions here:

a. She is bringing up the children here.

b. The children are his as well as hers (by which I mean they are not just biologically his - they are actually his - IFYSWIM - as in the decision to have them was a joint one - not something she decided on her own). If she had been the only one to decide to have children - and he had been used as an unwilling "sperm donor" - then I would have voted for nothing for her.

majjie

StuFos wrote: »

"Women:
15% said Janet should get nothing
21% said Janet should get 10%
18% said Janet should get 20%
19% said Janet should get 30%
5% said Janet should get 40%
21% said Janet should get 50%
1% said Janet should get more than 50%"

I think this stat just show how many women are money-grabbers these days. Us poor guys

I don't think this follows!

I voted for her getting 50% - but I'm single and very much planning to stay that way. Voting that she should get 50% doesn't make me a money-grabber.

If a man marries a woman and has kids with her - then he's agreeing that what's his is half hers - and vice versa. It's called commitment. It's optional. He decided to go for it and like many people have said, he's still well off, even after the split.

With more and more women becoming independent, I think it's likely to be the men who are begging to get married in the future. After all, it's the only way of being half certain that the kids are yours

ormus

to take a famous case that is in the courts right now. i think a fair decision would be to work out how much the mans wealth has increased since the marriage. then 50/50 of that sum.
lets say he was worth 800 million 4 yrs ago and is now worth say 880m. then 40 million is enough for any gold digger.

nephilim

seeing as she did nothing to contribute to him building the business and he said he would give her a generous child benefit package, she should get nothing.

If she helped him build up his business and they sold it, yes she is entitled to half, if not, then no she isnt.

My fiance! and I have signed a pre-nup that anything we bring into the marraige we keep as individual assets, but thereafter, if say we both build up a company and we divorce, its split 50/50 down the middle, it saves hassle, and it was her that bought it up. (She agree's with me on this one aswell - my statement at the top)

haylibo

In the example given, as a woman, I would want to walk away with nothing. Obviously you want the children to be fine but I would be determined to stand alone. It would affect my sense of independence and personal integrity to take something that wasn't mine to to take. If the ex-husband offers funds with a good heart and in the spirit of friendship/companionship as part of an amicable split then that could be different but I always feel slightly repulsed by these women who aim for a 'payout' at the end of marriage. Have they no dignity? It says to me. 'my value in life is dependent on squeezing money from this man against his will'.
I'd rather start again with nothing. Extracting cash is usually used as a means of achieving some sense of 'justice' which is a little ugly too. I can understand the emotional turmoil that divorce can bring but anyone, man or woman, should want to walk from a relationship knowing they can always 'paddle their own canoe'.

OddjobKIA

None of the above


The children should get everything the assets should go into the childrens names.. when they turn 18 they then have controll over their equall share..
The children own the house and the finances are contrlled though a trust fund.. The parents should move in and out of the family house as and when their visiting rights expire.. The parents should move out and live on a basic income from the esatate for a short set time limit or untill they are in full time work again..the only material items they can remove from the house are their clothes and wash items everything else becomes the property of the children or child...If no children are invloved in the equation then the state should take controll of the assets and each adult is allowed 60 days to put in writing which items they require from the estate ie this car, that stereo blah blah blah..The finances will be split so each party has a small equall amount and the rest goes to charity's chosen by the couple invloved..

In the cases of abuse or infedelity the person commiting the act should be left with the clothes on their back and personall effects and thats it.




Just in case you don't relise I don't Like divorce

srvr

None of the above


The children should get everything the assets should go into the childrens names.. when they turn 18 they then have controll over their equall share..
The children own the house and the finances are contrlled though a trust fund.. The parents should move in and out of the family house as and when their visiting rights expire.. The parents should move out and live on a basic income from the esatate for a short set time limit or untill they are in full time work again..the only material items they can remove from the house are their clothes and wash items everything else becomes the property of the children or child...If no children are invloved in the equation then the state should take controll of the assets and each adult is allowed 60 days to put in writing which items they require from the estate ie this car, that stereo blah blah blah..The finances will be split so each party has a small equall amount and the rest goes to charity's chosen by the couple invloved..

In the cases of abuse or infedelity the person commiting the act should be left with the clothes on their back and personall effects and thats it.




Just in case you don't relise I don't Like divorce

Ill sign you up to the crazy section then.

If your daft enough to believe for one second that people are mature at 18 these days then your either under 18 and high self image or so far over 18 you have no idea.

If this was the alternative i would rather get rid of marriage.

kittykitten

I found this poll really hard to vote in, as it's so simplistic. How about removing the 10 million made before the marriage issue, and looking at what's been made during their partnership, and splitting that 50/50? Also what did Janet do before they married? I know she had limited assests but If she's given up a career to live with him and have children then how do you compensate for the time she's lost in her career?

OddjobKIA

srvr wrote: »

Ill sign you up to the crazy section then.

If your daft enough to believe for one second that people are mature at 18 these days then your either under 18 and high self image or so far over 18 you have no idea.

If this was the alternative i would rather get rid of marriage.

well thats me signed up for a stint in the crazy house then..

so what age is everybody mature enough to be married then...lets think

25.............How many people are to mature enough to say no to their sexuall desires to some temptress when their wife is at home waiting for them..


okay 30......Now how many teachers have been caought with thier hands down a tennagers knickers..

35.....whats the average for divorce again


40....aparently the syatrt of the midlife crisis you knmow grown men sleeping with kids younger than their own or driving Bikes they wanted when they were 18

Lets just skip stright to 85..I can't rememebr anyone I know at this age chasing kids youngenough to be their great grand daughter..or driving a lotus elise...

So there we have it you are mature enought to marry at 85...


Either that or you could relise that people are just selfish, lazy, and only ever thinking about themsleves..

mantha13

I've worked as a PA to a divorce lawyer for over ten years and I'm aware that the Court always puts the children's needs first. The problem with this poll is there isn't enough information to go on, for instance what does "generous" maintenance actually mean?

However in such cases the court usually goes with the general principal that both parties should be able to provide the same standard of living for the children, so they aren't living in a mansion at the weekends and a flat during the week (or vice versa). It doesn't matter whether the man or woman has the majority of the assets, it is more important who looks after them the majority of the time and to ensure that there isn't a vast difference in the status of each parent.

In my humble opinion, I think that is partly why Heather Mills got so much money and also because Sir Paul probably didn't want the matter going to the Appeal Court and having all his dirty washing aired in public.