Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Jenny
    • By MSE Jenny 6th Apr 09, 11:20 AM
    • 1,228Posts
    • 3,559Thanks
    MSE Jenny
    MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Peggy pay back some of Archie's fortune?
    • #1
    • 6th Apr 09, 11:20 AM
    MONEY MORAL DILEMMA. Should Peggy pay back some of Archie's fortune? 6th Apr 09 at 11:20 AM
    Here's this week's hypothetical situation for you to cogitate on:

    Should rich divorcee Peggy give money back to struggling Ex?

    Two years ago, housewife Peggy split up with her husband, Archie. At the time, he was running a thriving property business, and she got half his fortune, all in cash, as part of a huge divorce payout. He was left primarily with shares. Now Archie's business is in ruins, and he's facing bankruptcy. Should Peggy give some of the cash back?

    Click reply to have your say

    Previous MMDs:
    Would you flog store cards to keep a job?
    Should Tina lend to Stina?


    This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email

    Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers

    Last edited by MSE Jenny; 07-04-2009 at 2:08 PM.
Page 1
  • Tesco-shopper
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 09, 7:41 PM
    • #2
    • 6th Apr 09, 7:41 PM
    No!

    If his business had started to rake in millions, would he have given her any more money? No! So why should it be any different, unless of course she WANTED to, but by the fact that they were divorced, I don't think she would want to.
    • *Louise*
    • By *Louise* 7th Apr 09, 5:12 PM
    • 9,046 Posts
    • 28,113 Thanks
    *Louise*
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:12 PM
    • #3
    • 7th Apr 09, 5:12 PM
    Depends if the split was amicable or not I guess

    If he had done something really awful to cause the divorce, and she hated him, then she shouldn't give him any money.

    If however it was amicable, and particularly if they had children together (taking their futures into consideration) then perhaps it would be nice to help out.

    (But on the condition it was seen as a loan and paid back when business picked up again)
    Cross Stitch Cafe member No. 3
    2012 170-194 2013 195-207.Hello Kitty ballerina 208.AVA 209.OLIVIA 210.ELLA 211.CARLA 212.LOUISE 213.CHARLEY 214.Mother & Child 215.Stop Faffing Completed 2014 216.Stitchers Sampler. 217.Let Them Be Small 218.Keep Calm 219. Ups and downs 220. Annniversary piece 221. 2x Teachers gifts 222. Peacock 223. Tooth Fairy 224. Beth Birth pic 225. Circe the Sorceress Cards x 24
  • ilovelillbj
    • #4
    • 8th Apr 09, 1:26 AM
    • #4
    • 8th Apr 09, 1:26 AM
    Or she should never have taken it in the first place unless she would have earnt that much by not having his children or something. If that's the case then no, she 'earnt' it.
    Otherwise, ...and I cautiously say regardless of the circumstances of the divorce*...yes she should. He made that fortune, just being with someone for a while shouldn't entitle you to half of it.

    *There are none mentioned, and the question is SHOULD she, not would she.
  • hartsdown
    • #5
    • 8th Apr 09, 6:52 AM
    Valuing marital assets
    • #5
    • 8th Apr 09, 6:52 AM
    Someone wrongly valued the business. If the wife was given a painting valued at 11m and two years later this turned out to be a fake, i.e. not worth what it had been valued at, what would be the situation then?
    • tallgirld
    • By tallgirld 8th Apr 09, 7:07 AM
    • 476 Posts
    • 317 Thanks
    tallgirld
    • #6
    • 8th Apr 09, 7:07 AM
    • #6
    • 8th Apr 09, 7:07 AM
    NOPE!!! She should tell him to sell his shares. Or alternatively she should offer him a loan with a 50% APR!!
  • yvonneirene
    • #7
    • 8th Apr 09, 8:25 AM
    Yvonne
    • #7
    • 8th Apr 09, 8:25 AM
    Yes, she should pay him back.
    • divadee
    • By divadee 8th Apr 09, 8:31 AM
    • 10,425 Posts
    • 17,862 Thanks
    divadee
    • #8
    • 8th Apr 09, 8:31 AM
    • #8
    • 8th Apr 09, 8:31 AM
    nope i agree with tesco shopper, he wouldnt of given her more if his business was a huge success so its the luck of life how things go, and she came out a winner
    • pineapple
    • By pineapple 8th Apr 09, 8:31 AM
    • 6,298 Posts
    • 30,236 Thanks
    pineapple
    • #9
    • 8th Apr 09, 8:31 AM
    • #9
    • 8th Apr 09, 8:31 AM
    Call me an old softie but if the split was amicable (or if I felt guilty because I had run off with the plumber!) I would help him out.
  • jillybee
    Why did she get half? Did she help run the business? If not then she should have got what she would be earning if she was working (and not looking after kids) maybe 25,000 for each year.
    • warmhands.coldheart
    • By warmhands.coldheart 8th Apr 09, 8:33 AM
    • 3,491 Posts
    • 3,824 Thanks
    warmhands.coldheart
    Yes
    Yes. though I would say just enough for him to live comfortably for a set period of time (Say 1 year) Nothing OTT. No Holidays, Make him sell the flash cars etc... Enough time for him to get back on his feet or get a job. It was this business after all which enabled her to get this big payoff in the first place. Also maybe she should take some of these shares as a trade off too. Look at them as a long term investment.

    Bit silly really of him to pay her off in Cash. Also bepends on if he was a naughty boy to cause the split in the first place..
    • mapcr77
    • By mapcr77 8th Apr 09, 8:50 AM
    • 666 Posts
    • 1,004 Thanks
    mapcr77
    Yes
    Had they remained together, both would have shared the missfortune of diminishing assets (and the same applies had things gone the other way and the value of them had increased).
    Seen it in another way, its like Sir Fred Goodwin and his 700k a year pension. When times were good he could have justified that amount, now that they are not, he should surrender it for the common good of those he was previously involved with.
    • kalojac
    • By kalojac 8th Apr 09, 8:52 AM
    • 422 Posts
    • 5,363 Thanks
    kalojac
    Depends on the split I suppose but if it was an amicable split and there were kids involved, and their future was at risk, I would help him out.
  • lamp
    Unless he's some sort of evil monster, you'd like to think if you married him (presumably for love) in the first instance, there'd be some degree of compassion left within you to help him out in his time of need. If he starts taking the michael, then drop connections.
    • SaraW
    • By SaraW 8th Apr 09, 9:09 AM
    • 5 Posts
    • 2 Thanks
    SaraW
    I think it's her money now so her actions depend on how she feels about her ex - that's all we can say from a moral perspective given that we have no details of the circumstances of the divorce.For example, if he was mentally or physically abusive then I'm sure most would agree that she deserved all the money she got as compensation but,on the other hand,if she had cheated on him and he had settled with a half-half split just to get the sorry affair over with most would argue, from a moral perspective, that she owes him something.
    It would be different if they had children, it would be upsetting for them if the father felt and acted bitterly towards the mother, but the dilemma doesn't say that they do.

    If she did want to help him out I think it would be important for her to make a specific offer to him and make it clear what the limits of her offer were. Otherwise he could think she felt obliged to do it, that her money was in some way still his, and take advantage of this to press for more money.
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 8th Apr 09, 9:20 AM
    • 6,456 Posts
    • 3,170 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    As the guardian succinctly put it:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/letters-divorce-risk
    There are good public policy considerations in preventing aggrieved litigants from reopening deals they struck or which were imposed following a court hearing, not least the fact that families need to be able to move on following relationship breakdown.
    They should have spread the risk before/at the divorce - rather than her getting it all in cash. It's too late to do anything now.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • pennypinchUK
    • By pennypinchUK 8th Apr 09, 9:22 AM
    • 382 Posts
    • 732 Thanks
    pennypinchUK
    Well, if he ran off with the au pair I'd say his chances of getting anything would be anything between zilch and zero. But if it was amicable, why not? People don't have to hate each other just 'cos they find they can't live together. Although I suspect if I was the woman in that situation I'd have any goodwill payment tied up in a legal contract to say I'd get a share in any future profits of his business. Sounds like a win-win to me.
    • matchmade
    • By matchmade 8th Apr 09, 9:23 AM
    • 57 Posts
    • 41 Thanks
    matchmade
    Yes, but only in part. Divorce settlements are rarely entirely one-off settlements: for example she will probably be getting half his pension in the future, which will go up and down in value post-divorce, especially if it's a SIPP invested in his company's shares or property holdings. At the very least the monthly payments she'll be getting should be based on his income and capital value, not a fixed sum.

    However it is difficult to justify her returning capital to him, just because his business went pear-shaped: what is she meant to do - sell her house? Arguably the man is at fault for not having the foresight to see his business might get into trouble, or for making bad business decisions after the divorce, for which his ex-wife can't be expected to compensate him. We wouldn't expect the man to add to the divorce settlement if the ex-wife was fleeced by an unsuitable blonde who married her, then divorced her after two years and claimed half her assets, would we?
  • rockyphotos
    Peggy v Archie
    As there are no details of the case in question the answer would be NO!
    Speculation could go on for ever, she might have spent the lot!
    • Dorrie
    • By Dorrie 8th Apr 09, 10:11 AM
    • 66 Posts
    • 46 Thanks
    Dorrie
    I would say No. The divorce settlement was exactly that - a settlement. End of their union together. She is under no obligation to give him anything.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,852Posts Today

7,367Users online

Martin's Twitter