Wife wins 'biggest' divorce award

So it would appear, as far as British divorces go, anyway. Apparently the 48m represents 37% of the husband's worth, but hacks into money that 20 years ago was decided (by both parties) to be put away for future generations and not touched by either husband or wife. Husband wants to maintain that status quo, wife wants as much as she can get, now. The 20m he already offered her wasn't enough.

My guess is someone is a little bitter about something. Pity.

I don't know the current state of the McCartney/Mills split, mind, which I would think is extremely likely to blow this mere 48m into the weeds.

Cheers!

Rich

Word is its going to cost him and arm and a leg

Gary,

Ouch! [groan - I should have seen that coming!]

Regards,

R.

I noticed the gentleman involved put forward as his defence the line that 'no reasonable person could possibly spend £20m in their lifetime, never mind £48m'. Not a very good line to take, given that he's left with the by definition superfluous amount of £100m. And if she were to live off the interest of the interest, £48m only gives her £100k pa, a fairly reasonable sum one would have thought!!

I think the moaning about the ruling in this case centres around the creation of trust fund some years ago and the aims of that trust fund. From what I can gather the fund was not set up correctly to serve as a dynatic fund (can you have such a thing?) so being free from beng included in the joint pot of assets when and he and his wife seperated. I still think that the wife has being short changed by only being awarded 37% of the assets but then I am not a judge