Archive for March, 2008

I reported yesterday about how I thought McCartney got away lightly with his divorce settlement. It seems that his ‘escape’, if you can call it that, may well set a precedent for future cases, according to FT.com.

As virtually all McCartney’s assets had been derived before the marriage began, the court did not acknowledge the principle of sharing, whereby each spouse’s contribution to the marriage is usually recognised by an equal split of assets. McCartney had achieved and would continue to achieve his success because of his contribution through The Beatles.

Usually all assets from a marriage, whether they were acquired before or during the marriage, are regarded as being jointly owned. Therefore Heather Mills could have expected to walk away with a £200,000,000 payout from the settlement. This obviously would have been grossly unfair as Paul McCartney had spent the best part of his life building his fortune, and entertaining millions in the progress. For someone to come along at the eleventh hour and deprive him of that would be unjust; but that is the way divorce works.

For example, I was told during my divorce settlement that even a Hi-Fi unit I had received for my 17th birthday was considered a matrimonial asset, and as such was claimed by ex-wife, even though I owned the item almost 10 years before I even met her.

Divorce can be really petty, and unless it’s handled in an amicable way can cost both parties a substantial amount of money, time and stress.

I applaud McCartney for standing firm on his divorce settlement and only hope that what happened with him does indeed set a precedent for divorces to come. Heather Mills had no more right to the money he earned from being with the Beatles than my ex-wife had to my decade old Hi-Fi system.

Well done Paul.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

As someone who has gone through the trauma of divorce, and the even greater trauma of a financial settlement, I have great sympathy for Paul McCartney. While £24.3 million may seem like a lot of money to just hand over to a woman that has basically done nothing for Paul’s career, and has not contributed in any way to his personal wealth or supported him while he has accumulated it, you have to say that in many ways Macca has got away lightly.

First off, there is a child involved and she has custody, therefore standard financial settlement rules suggest that she should be deserving of not only half of his fortune, but 60%.

That’s right, the parent with care should retain 60% of the matrimonial assets, which means Macca could have have ended up paying £240 million, if the judge’s assessment of his wealth was accurate.

I had to pay 60% of my assets when I got divorced, so while I didn’t quite fork out the £24.3 million that McCartney did, in real terms I paid a lot more than he did.

From the BBC website.

The judge awarded a lump sum of £16.5m and assets of £7.8m.

The summary judgment stated that Ms Mills had sought £125m and been offered £15.8m by Sir Paul.

The judge ruled that Sir Paul was worth £400m, whereas Ms Mills claimed the singer was worth some £800m.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

This quite harrowing video on YouTube talks about the effects of divorce on both children and teenagers. The effects of divorce on children can be quite profound, so it’s important to take their thoughts and needs into consideration during any break up situation.

Remember that during divorce your children will require the love and support of both parents, and can’t be expected to choose sides or cope with any arguments between their parents.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

Robin Williams, the stand-up comic turned actor, and star of films Mrs Doubtfire, Good Morning Vietnam and Dead Poets Society (plus the sitcom Mork and Mindy) is to divorce after 19 years of marriage, Reuters reports.

Robin Williams and his wife Marsha Garces Williams are to divorce after 19 years of marriage.

Reuters reports that Garces Williams filed for divorce in a San Francisco court last week, citing irreconcilable differences.

It’s hardly surprising when you consider that Robin and Marsha met when she was hired as a nanny for his children, when he was still with his first wife.

After leaving his wife for you Marsha, he’s hardly likely to be trusted now is he?

Still, well done Robin, congratulations on finally getting divorced… again.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (1)

A while ago I blogged about the single occupancy discount on your council tax that you could claim for if you’re now living on your own after your ex-wife leaves the property. However, there are more complicated and somewhat farcical elements to the way council tax is worked out.

For example:

If you live on your own in a property you are permitted a 25% discount for single occupancy. Nice and straight forward that one.

If however the house is empty, and devoid of furniture, you are permitted a 50% discount on the council tax for several months. This should help you make ends meet if you have had to move away as a result of your divorce.

Now, if the house isn’t lived in by anyone, but has some furniture in it, no matter how little, you will be forced to pay the full amount of council tax. You won’t get any discount, even for single occupancy, even though no one lives there at all. This may seem strange, and unfair, but it’s the way the council have their rules. They say it’s to avoid people buying second homes and avoiding the full council tax rates, but obviously it more often than not catches people who are unfortunate in divorce situations and thus have to pay full council tax on two properties.

If you’re unhappy about this, as I imagine anyone who is affected by it will be, I’d suggest you write to your local MP about the rules.

I can see the point to the rule, but the practise means that honest, hard-working people in unusual circumstances are penalised.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

Following on from my post about the top 10 ways to murder your ex-wife, I thought it only fair and prudent to post a similar guide to murdering your mother-in-law. Let’s face it, if your mother-in-law is anything like mine was, you’ll be doing the World a favour, and after all,  your mother-in-law is just an older, more evil version of your ex-wife anyway. She deserves it.

So, without any delay, here are my top 10 ways to murder your mother-in-law.

1. Tie her down, cover her in jam and let a colony of flesh eating ants strip her to the bone
2. Beat her to death using her own cat as a club, wielding the little git by the tale
3. Poison her by forcing her to eat her own daughter’s cooking
4. Steak her through the heart with a wooden chair leg, only way to be sure
5. Shoot her in the face
6. After carefully selecting the correct iron and stance for the shot, rasp her round the head with a gold club
7. Cut her limbs off and keep her in a box for your amusement
8. Take her out to the Vegas desert with some mates and beat her to death with baseball bats, Joe Pesci style
9. Blast her into space (it worked for Ming the Merciless)
10. Drill a hole in her coffin so the sunlight pokes in and torches the bitch while she’s sleeping

There you go, all helpful suggestions on dealing with the mother-in-law. Let me know which is your favourite.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

Earlier on I asked if my ex-wife could get my children’s surname changed by deed poll without my permission. I’ve done some rooting around and I’ve found what I wanted to know, luckily it’s good news.

You can see on this website here.

For births registered in England or Wales
If the mother was married to the father when their child was born, or if the mother married the father at any time subsequent to the birth, the father also has parental responsibility. Please note, from 1st December 2003, an unmarried father automatically acquires parental responsibility if he is named (or later becomes named by re-registration) on the child’s birth certificate.

This is how parental responsibility is ascertained, the website goes onto say:

If a father has parental responsibility, his consent is required to change his child’s name. This is the case even if he and the mother have separated, divorced or remarried and if the father has no contact whatsoever with the child.

This means that if the father’s name is on the birth certificate his permission is required in order to get the child’s surname changed.

Great news eh? For any fathers out there who are concerned that their ex-wifes or ex-partners might change their child’s name without their permission, don’t worry. If your name is on the birth certificate your permission is required. If you don’t give your permission your ex will have to appeal before a judge to get the name changed.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (2)

This is something I have been wondering myself for some time, and I’ve heard mixed stories on the actual legal position. I aim to clarify the situation this week for everyone, and for myself, as I’m genuinely concerned about the whole thing. I don’t want my children growing up with someone else’s name, either my ex-wife’s or someone else entirely different.

I heard from one woman that she was able, should she want, to change her two children’s names because she and the father of the children were never married, and his name isn’t on the birth certificate. Therefore she has the right to change their names from his, to hers if she wants. She said she would never do that, but it’s her right.

I’ve also heard that if you were married and the father’s name is on the birth certificate then the mother does require the father’s permission to change the surnames of the children. This is, I hope, the real case. As I said I will be investigating the legal position this week and will update everyone here.

Can my ex-wife change my children’s names without my permission? I hope not, and I aim to find out.

Clive Bellmore

Comments (27)

If you’re due to get married soon, all the plans have been set and everything has been paid for, yet you’re having second thoughts about the whole thing; remember, divorce costs more than marriage.

Yes, you’ll be somewhat unpopular with your betrothed  and her family. Yes you’ll cost quite a considerable amount of money for them and probably yourself in wasted expense, but in the long run you’ll be saving yourself one heck of a lot more. No matter how much money the church was to hire, the dress was to buy, the cars were to hire, the cake, the suits, the flowers, the wedding planner… whatever else you may have spent money on; it all pales into insignificance when compared to the cost of getting rid of the wife afterwards.

So, if you’re feeling that you don’t want to go through with it but you’re worried about letting people down, don’t be. It’s more important that you make the right decision now instead of regretting it later.

Marriage is expensive, and would represent a lot of money to waste by cancelling a wedding, but divorce will cost you far more than any wedding can. Think carefully about your decision, it could prove a costly one.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment

Child Support Analysis is a website that makes a point of exposing issues related to the CSA, or at least it did, as it’s now closed for business. All of their past stories are still available on the website however.

It’s a shame this website isn’t being updated anymore as it contains links to a seemingly endless supply of documents related to the formation and governing of the child support agency. The website began in 2001, becoming a blog in 2003 and was updated regularly until October 2006.

The Internet needs more sites like this one, and I aim to ensure the information and help this site and many like it offered is not lost over time. Free help and advice in dealing with the CSA should be available to all.

Clive Bellmore

Post a Comment