We fought for equality. So why do greedy wives still sponge off their ex-husbands?
The other day, a relatively new man friend drove me past a splendid detached house in a rich suburb of London, where prices are at least £1.5 million. ‘What do you think of it?’ he asked. ‘Nice,’ I said. ‘Are you thinking of buying it?’
‘I wish I could,’ he said. ‘It used to belong to me, but it’s now my ex-wife’s. She got it on our divorce.’
He had been banished to a dingy rented flat, he told me. This was all he could afford, as he was also paying out £800-a-month maintenance, as well as their children’s school fees.
Welcome to divorce, 2013 style.
Far from being an unlucky, isolated example, my friend is one of the growing number of men who find themselves losing everything through divorce.
Meanwhile, women, ever more, seem to be living by the principle of ‘don’t get mad, get everything’.
And often, they go on getting everything for years, long after time has been called on their marriage.
In these days of equal education, opportunities and access to professions, women are still humiliating themselves by expecting (and receiving) huge and continuing settlements when a marriage ends.
I consider myself a feminist, but I don’t see why today’s divorcing women should expect any kind of settlement at all.
What on earth is wrong with earning your own living and standing on your own two feet? If modern marriage is an equal partnership, divorce should be the same, surely, with both parties getting out what they have put in, as when any other type of contract ends.
Yet modern women are still positioning themselves as the weaker vessel having to be kept by a big strong man, whether married or divorced. We have fought for equality, and many battles have been won, but divorcing women are still making out they are pathetic little Fifties housewives unable to fend for themselves, before ruthlessly fleecing the men they once professed to love.
They should be utterly ashamed.
Depressingly, this year’s Rich List, for the first time, included a separate list for divorced women whose only source of vast wealth was that provided by their ex-husbands. The compilers of the list said that if you are an attractive woman, possibly your best guarantee of a huge income is to marry a super-rich man and then divorce him a few years later.
Slavica Ecclestone walked away with around £750 million after her divorce from Bernie, following a 23-year marriage and two daughters; Irina Malandina was awarded £155 million after 16 years of marriage to Russian Roman Abramovich and five children; and Diana Jenkins, former wife of Barclays tax expert Roger Jenkins, banked a handy £150 million at the dissolution of their ten-year marriage.
If you want to do the same, push out a kid if at all possible. Based on the Heather Mills principle, this will mean you can command an even better settlement. The presence of a child will ensure generous maintenance payments for years, maybe decades, to come.
I can’t help suspecting that many of these women who got themselves on the ex-wives list were never passionately in love with their high-earning husbands. To a greater or lesser extent, their marriages will probably have been soul-less arrangements from the outset.
It’s easy for an attractive woman to use her charm and wiles to entrap a rich man, all the time calculating the cash they receive when they can call time on the marriage.
So why can’t they put such time and forethought into developing careers and financial independence rather than sponging off someone else?
It’s significant that, so far, there is no Rich List for the ex-husbands of wealthy women. And of course, not every wife who endures the pain of divorce will end up quids in.
According to a new report, if you are a woman intent on a lucrative split, you should make sure you live in a city, as then you are more likely to be awarded continuing maintenance on top of the lion’s share of the marital assets.
A survey of over 700 divorce cases found that metropolitan courts almost always award a better deal to ex-wives than provincial courts.
The report added that spouses who live in the country will most likely have to make do with a clean-break settlement, as they are expected to stand on their own two feet after divorce.
It’s not even necessary to set your cap at a vastly rich husband to do well out of divorce.
Divorce courts always consider the income or property the higher earner is likely to have in future. When a wealthy person divorces, it is often considered that the former spouse made him what he was — or played a major part.
Women who are married to ordinary earners can be set up for years with the house, car, custody of children and a regular lump sum in their accounts.
Some divorcees are reluctant to remarry, in case they kill the goose that lays the golden egg — maintenance usually stops when you have another husband to support you — so they content themselves with boyfriends, lovers and, as they get older, the mandatory toyboy.
The cruellest trick of all? Even years after divorce, an ex-wife can come back and demand more on the basis that she made a significant contribution to her husband’s wealth, or that she supported him with her own earnings.
Since 2000, ex-wives have been able to go back to the courts to demand a slice of their former husband’s pension. Pensions were brought into the divorce arena 13 years ago on the grounds that most pensions are in the husband’s name, and the marriage was ongoing as the pension fund accrued.
Michael Douglas’s first wife, Diandra Lukar, has just re-opened their case and is demanding a share of her former husband’s future earnings, 13 years after they divorced. This was after losing her case in 2010 for a share of Money Never Sleeps, as Douglas argued this film was made after their divorce.
But she is still entitled to a share of earnings from films made during their marriage. This can also happen in the UK if the wife has no reasonable expectations of being a high earner in her own right. Karen Parlour, who divorced her England and Arsenal football star husband Ray in 2002, won the legal right to a one-third share of his future earnings in 2004 in a landmark case at the Court of Appeal. It set a precedent for former wives to bag themselves the share they would enjoy if they were still married.
When a wife has been brutally dumped, perhaps there’s more grounds for sympathy. But these days, an estimated 70 per cent of divorces are brought by women. What are these women being paid for, when no longer married?
In my circle of friends alone, I know of countless men who have fallen foul of greedy ex-wives who seem determined to see the men they married reduced to penury.
One friend had been married for about 20 years when his wife decided she wanted a divorce. There were no particular grounds, and no one else was involved. Each sought out a lawyer, and the wife was awarded 85 per cent of the joint assets.
There were no children and she had never worked. After the divorce, she moved into a small cottage with enough money to see her out. He had just enough money to buy a small flat, and had to start all over again. He got virtually none of the marital assets accumulated over the years, including a house worth £800,000.
My friend Alex Williams, the artist, came out of his first marriage of over 26 years at the age of 50 with, quite literally, nothing — not even a roof over his head. His solicitor felt that was the best she could do for him, and he was lucky not to have to pay maintenance too.
His children were then in their mid-20s, and his ex-wife continued to live in what had been the marital home — the home Alex had spent years renovating from a ruin.
Again, it was his then-wife who had called time on the marriage.
A few years after my own divorce, I updated a lawyer friend on my situation, telling him my ex was now living as a monk in a retreat centre and had taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. My friend’s first question was: ‘Does he pay your maintenance?’
‘Maintenance?’ I asked in surprise. When we divorced, no lawyers were involved, and we did a 50/50 split with no further financial obligations on either side. It was a fair division and reflected what each had put into the relationship.
I could never have demeaned myself by accepting maintenance, and allowing myself to be a kept woman for years after divorce.
I know there are many cases where men have been the villains, having secret mistresses or have gambled or drunk away family funds. Rightly, they should pay for their misdeeds.
But in 2013, women who demand everything on divorce, and expect maintenance forever after, should hang their heads in shame. We must show everybody that we are not simpering victims, but proud, strong and, above all, financially independent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ality-So-greedy-wives-sponge-ex-husbands.html
The other day, a relatively new man friend drove me past a splendid detached house in a rich suburb of London, where prices are at least £1.5 million. ‘What do you think of it?’ he asked. ‘Nice,’ I said. ‘Are you thinking of buying it?’
‘I wish I could,’ he said. ‘It used to belong to me, but it’s now my ex-wife’s. She got it on our divorce.’
He had been banished to a dingy rented flat, he told me. This was all he could afford, as he was also paying out £800-a-month maintenance, as well as their children’s school fees.
Welcome to divorce, 2013 style.
Far from being an unlucky, isolated example, my friend is one of the growing number of men who find themselves losing everything through divorce.
Meanwhile, women, ever more, seem to be living by the principle of ‘don’t get mad, get everything’.
And often, they go on getting everything for years, long after time has been called on their marriage.
In these days of equal education, opportunities and access to professions, women are still humiliating themselves by expecting (and receiving) huge and continuing settlements when a marriage ends.
I consider myself a feminist, but I don’t see why today’s divorcing women should expect any kind of settlement at all.
What on earth is wrong with earning your own living and standing on your own two feet? If modern marriage is an equal partnership, divorce should be the same, surely, with both parties getting out what they have put in, as when any other type of contract ends.
Yet modern women are still positioning themselves as the weaker vessel having to be kept by a big strong man, whether married or divorced. We have fought for equality, and many battles have been won, but divorcing women are still making out they are pathetic little Fifties housewives unable to fend for themselves, before ruthlessly fleecing the men they once professed to love.
They should be utterly ashamed.
Depressingly, this year’s Rich List, for the first time, included a separate list for divorced women whose only source of vast wealth was that provided by their ex-husbands. The compilers of the list said that if you are an attractive woman, possibly your best guarantee of a huge income is to marry a super-rich man and then divorce him a few years later.
Slavica Ecclestone walked away with around £750 million after her divorce from Bernie, following a 23-year marriage and two daughters; Irina Malandina was awarded £155 million after 16 years of marriage to Russian Roman Abramovich and five children; and Diana Jenkins, former wife of Barclays tax expert Roger Jenkins, banked a handy £150 million at the dissolution of their ten-year marriage.
If you want to do the same, push out a kid if at all possible. Based on the Heather Mills principle, this will mean you can command an even better settlement. The presence of a child will ensure generous maintenance payments for years, maybe decades, to come.
I can’t help suspecting that many of these women who got themselves on the ex-wives list were never passionately in love with their high-earning husbands. To a greater or lesser extent, their marriages will probably have been soul-less arrangements from the outset.
It’s easy for an attractive woman to use her charm and wiles to entrap a rich man, all the time calculating the cash they receive when they can call time on the marriage.
So why can’t they put such time and forethought into developing careers and financial independence rather than sponging off someone else?
It’s significant that, so far, there is no Rich List for the ex-husbands of wealthy women. And of course, not every wife who endures the pain of divorce will end up quids in.
According to a new report, if you are a woman intent on a lucrative split, you should make sure you live in a city, as then you are more likely to be awarded continuing maintenance on top of the lion’s share of the marital assets.
A survey of over 700 divorce cases found that metropolitan courts almost always award a better deal to ex-wives than provincial courts.
The report added that spouses who live in the country will most likely have to make do with a clean-break settlement, as they are expected to stand on their own two feet after divorce.
It’s not even necessary to set your cap at a vastly rich husband to do well out of divorce.
Divorce courts always consider the income or property the higher earner is likely to have in future. When a wealthy person divorces, it is often considered that the former spouse made him what he was — or played a major part.
Women who are married to ordinary earners can be set up for years with the house, car, custody of children and a regular lump sum in their accounts.
Some divorcees are reluctant to remarry, in case they kill the goose that lays the golden egg — maintenance usually stops when you have another husband to support you — so they content themselves with boyfriends, lovers and, as they get older, the mandatory toyboy.
The cruellest trick of all? Even years after divorce, an ex-wife can come back and demand more on the basis that she made a significant contribution to her husband’s wealth, or that she supported him with her own earnings.
Since 2000, ex-wives have been able to go back to the courts to demand a slice of their former husband’s pension. Pensions were brought into the divorce arena 13 years ago on the grounds that most pensions are in the husband’s name, and the marriage was ongoing as the pension fund accrued.
Michael Douglas’s first wife, Diandra Lukar, has just re-opened their case and is demanding a share of her former husband’s future earnings, 13 years after they divorced. This was after losing her case in 2010 for a share of Money Never Sleeps, as Douglas argued this film was made after their divorce.
But she is still entitled to a share of earnings from films made during their marriage. This can also happen in the UK if the wife has no reasonable expectations of being a high earner in her own right. Karen Parlour, who divorced her England and Arsenal football star husband Ray in 2002, won the legal right to a one-third share of his future earnings in 2004 in a landmark case at the Court of Appeal. It set a precedent for former wives to bag themselves the share they would enjoy if they were still married.
When a wife has been brutally dumped, perhaps there’s more grounds for sympathy. But these days, an estimated 70 per cent of divorces are brought by women. What are these women being paid for, when no longer married?
In my circle of friends alone, I know of countless men who have fallen foul of greedy ex-wives who seem determined to see the men they married reduced to penury.
One friend had been married for about 20 years when his wife decided she wanted a divorce. There were no particular grounds, and no one else was involved. Each sought out a lawyer, and the wife was awarded 85 per cent of the joint assets.
There were no children and she had never worked. After the divorce, she moved into a small cottage with enough money to see her out. He had just enough money to buy a small flat, and had to start all over again. He got virtually none of the marital assets accumulated over the years, including a house worth £800,000.
My friend Alex Williams, the artist, came out of his first marriage of over 26 years at the age of 50 with, quite literally, nothing — not even a roof over his head. His solicitor felt that was the best she could do for him, and he was lucky not to have to pay maintenance too.
His children were then in their mid-20s, and his ex-wife continued to live in what had been the marital home — the home Alex had spent years renovating from a ruin.
Again, it was his then-wife who had called time on the marriage.
A few years after my own divorce, I updated a lawyer friend on my situation, telling him my ex was now living as a monk in a retreat centre and had taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience. My friend’s first question was: ‘Does he pay your maintenance?’
‘Maintenance?’ I asked in surprise. When we divorced, no lawyers were involved, and we did a 50/50 split with no further financial obligations on either side. It was a fair division and reflected what each had put into the relationship.
I could never have demeaned myself by accepting maintenance, and allowing myself to be a kept woman for years after divorce.
I know there are many cases where men have been the villains, having secret mistresses or have gambled or drunk away family funds. Rightly, they should pay for their misdeeds.
But in 2013, women who demand everything on divorce, and expect maintenance forever after, should hang their heads in shame. We must show everybody that we are not simpering victims, but proud, strong and, above all, financially independent.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...ality-So-greedy-wives-sponge-ex-husbands.html
