Woman Outraged by equal divorce settlement

Julie Arnold, the woman at the centre of a landmark UK divorce ruling, is calling for updated laws around the splitting of assets.

And she makes an incredibly strong case.

Her ex-husband, Robin Sharp, cheated on her. He was then awarded a $4.6 million settlement: half of the couple's shared fortune – the bulk of which was reportedly earned by Arnold, a highly successful trader.

Arnold successfully contested the UK High Court ruling in June 2017. But even then, according to the Telegraph, Sharp (an IT consultant) received their $1.9 million house and an additional $1.5 million lump sum.

"It was still a lottery win, just for being with someone," Arnold told the Telegraph this week.

"If we’d stayed married, we would still have kept our finances separate and he would not have had his £2 million [$3.4 million]."

Arnold and Sharp were married for four years and had no children. During that time, Arnold earned more than $18 million in bonuses.

Despite her wish to end things immediately on finding out about Sharp's affair, divorce proceedings took a further four years – "just a further punishment for me," she told the Telegraph, "who had done nothing wrong."
It was unjust, she emphasised in her original challenge, that the law shared the results of her individual hard work with a partner who had contributed far less (to say nothing of doing her wrong).
The case posed an unprecedented challenge to the general principle of '50-50' divorce splits in the UK. (Division of assets under Australian law is a different matter.

British legal experts were divided. Some saw Arnold's victory as an important step for a system that wants to fairly represent modern relationships. Others suggested divorce cases are already riddled with personal variables, and trying to introduce broad rules of thumb based on specific cases is unhelpful.

Either way, Arnold herself is calling for further change.

"I was really disillusioned with the whole process," she told the Telegraph. "I really believed in the legal system and assumed justice would be served."

"All of this uncertainty puts people off getting married," she added.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/familyandrelationships/this-womans-husband-cheated-then-tried-to-take-half-their-fortune/ar-BBI46HG?li=AAgfLCP&ocid=ientp

veya_victaous wrote:

Julie Arnold, the woman at the centre of a landmark UK divorce ruling, is calling for updated laws around the splitting of assets.

And she makes an incredibly strong case.

Her ex-husband, Robin Sharp, cheated on her. He was then awarded a $4.6 million settlement: half of the couple's shared fortune – the bulk of which was reportedly earned by Arnold, a highly successful trader.

Arnold successfully contested the UK High Court ruling in June 2017. But even then, according to the Telegraph, Sharp (an IT consultant) received their $1.9 million house and an additional $1.5 million lump sum.

"It was still a lottery win, just for being with someone," Arnold told the Telegraph this week.

"If we’d stayed married, we would still have kept our finances separate and he would not have had his £2 million [$3.4 million]."

Arnold and Sharp were married for four years and had no children. During that time, Arnold earned more than $18 million in bonuses.

Despite her wish to end things immediately on finding out about Sharp's affair, divorce proceedings took a further four years – "just a further punishment for me," she told the Telegraph, "who had done nothing wrong."
 It was unjust, she emphasised in her original challenge, that the law shared the results of her individual hard work with a partner who had contributed far less (to say nothing of doing her wrong).
The case posed an unprecedented challenge to the general principle of '50-50' divorce splits in the UK. (Division of assets under Australian law is a different matter.

British legal experts were divided. Some saw Arnold's victory as an important step for a system that wants to fairly represent modern relationships. Others suggested divorce cases are already riddled with personal variables, and trying to introduce broad rules of thumb based on specific cases is unhelpful.

Either way, Arnold herself is calling for further change.

"I was really disillusioned with the whole process," she told the Telegraph. "I really believed in the legal system and assumed justice would be served."

"All of this uncertainty puts people off getting married," she added.

http://www.msn.com/en-au/lifestyle/familyandrelationships/this-womans-husband-cheated-then-tried-to-take-half-their-fortune/ar-BBI46HG?li=AAgfLCP&ocid=ientp

Syl wrote:Not sure whatt her looks have to do with anything.
I think she is right....She wasnt the one who broke the marriage vows, and she earned the bulk of the money  in the few short years they were together, why should her ex get half?

Syl wrote:Not sure what her looks have to do with anything.

I think she is right....She wasnt the one who broke the marriage vows, and she earned the bulk of the money  in the few short years they were together, why should her ex get half?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:Not sure whatt her looks have to do with anything.
I think she is right....She wasnt the one who broke the marriage vows, and she earned the bulk of the money  in the few short years they were together, why should her ex get half?

Nothing wrong with her looks.

Ex's in Texas always get half of all wealth accumulated during the marriage. It doesn't matter why the marriage ended.

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:Not sure what her looks have to do with anything.

I think she is right....She wasnt the one who broke the marriage vows, and she earned the bulk of the money  in the few short years they were together, why should her ex get half?

cause that is exactly what happens to men who's wives cheat on them

it is entirely fair as part of 'no fault' divorce, they were married 4 years doesn't matter how or why it ended 50/50 split since there is no kids.  

The judge will decide on the division of assets based on how long you’ve been married or in a civil partnership, as well as your:

ages, ability to earn, property and money, living expenses, standard of livingr, role in the marriage or civil partnership, for example if you were the breadwinner or primary carer

veya_victaous wrote:

The judge will decide on the division of assets based on how long you’ve been married or in a civil partnership, as well as your:

ages, ability to earn, property and money, living expenses, standard of livingr, role in the marriage or civil partnership, for example if you were the breadwinner or primary carer

so based on the rules he should get more than half since he has a lower ability to earn and she was the bread winner.... that's what would happen if the genders where reversed

veya_victaous wrote:

Syl wrote:Not sure what her looks have to do with anything.

I think she is right....She wasnt the one who broke the marriage vows, and she earned the bulk of the money  in the few short years they were together, why should her ex get half?

cause that is exactly what happens to men who's wives cheat on them

it is entirely fair as part of 'no fault' divorce, they were married 4 years doesn't matter how or why it ended 50/50 split since there is no kids.  

Cass wrote:If you’re concerned get a prenuptial. Then again, if you’re that concerned why bother getting married in the first place?

eddie wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

cause that is exactly what happens to men who's wives cheat on them

it is entirely fair as part of 'no fault' divorce, they were married 4 years doesn't matter how or why it ended 50/50 split since there is no kids.  

Totally agree. Women can't have it both ways.

eddie wrote:

Cass wrote:If you’re concerned get a prenuptial. Then again, if you’re that concerned why bother getting married in the first place?

Exactement.
And! Perhaps she was a real bitch within the marriage? There's normally a reason why people feel the need to cheat.

Syl wrote:

eddie wrote:

Cass wrote:If you’re concerned get a prenuptial. Then again, if you’re that concerned why bother getting married in the first place?

Exactement.
And! Perhaps she was a real bitch within the marriage? There's normally a reason why people feel the need to cheat.

Sometimess people get bored and they  snatch whatever they can get elsewhere thinking they wont get found out.

Not everyone needs a reason to cheat.

Syl wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Nothing wrong with her looks.

Ex's in Texas always get half of all wealth accumulated during the marriage. It doesn't matter why the marriage ended.

You were the one who mentioned her looks.

Hopefully, as this divorce was in the UK good sense will prevail.
No children are involved to complicate the issue.

The first ruling was ridiculous (probably a woman hating judge) she won her appeal, and even that went right  in her ex' s favour.

Why should an adulterer walk awaay from a childless marriage set up for life witth money his/or her innocent ex earned?

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

You were the one who mentioned her looks.

Hopefully, as this divorce was in the UK good sense will prevail.
No children are involved to complicate the issue.

The first ruling was ridiculous (probably a woman hating judge) she won her appeal, and even that went right  in her ex' s favour.

Why should an adulterer walk awaay from a childless marriage set up for life witth money his/or her innocent ex earned?

I mentioned her looks based on the fact that between those looks and the money involved, I would sign up for that gig. There are women so damn ugly that the money would have to be much better.

magica wrote:When women have affairs, they get to keep the house, money taken from their husband's wages to pay for kids etc.

If no kids are there, then things should be split down the middle, no matter who earns the most money.

Syl wrote:Not sure what her looks have to do with anything.

I think she is right....She wasnt the one who broke the marriage vows, and she earned the bulk of the money  in the few short years they were together, why should her ex get half?

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:When women have affairs, they get to keep the house, money taken from their husband's wages to pay for kids etc.

If no kids are there, then things should be split down the middle, no matter who earns the most money.

I don't agree Mags.
If the marriage is short (4 years in this case) and no children are involved, why should the assets be split if one person has contributed all the money and the other person hasn't?
We are not talking of a 2 up and down semi here, we are talking of millions of pound that one partner earned whilst the other shagged around.

In any case in the UK the 50/50 split doesn't apply...so I think this woman is right to carry on her fight for fairer divorce settlements.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't agree Mags.
If the marriage is short (4 years in this case) and no children are involved, why should the assets be split if one person has contributed all the money and the other person hasn't?
We are not talking of a 2 up and down semi here, we are talking of millions of pound that one partner earned whilst the other shagged around.

In any case in the UK the 50/50 split doesn't apply...so I think this woman is right to carry on her fight for fairer divorce settlements.

Then don't get married.

Syl wrote:

magica wrote:When women have affairs, they get to keep the house, money taken from their husband's wages to pay for kids etc.

If no kids are there, then things should be split down the middle, no matter who earns the most money.

I don't agree Mags.
If the marriage is short (4 years in this case) and no children are involved, why should the assets be split if one person has contributed all the money and the other person hasn't?
We are not talking of a 2 up and down semi here, we are talking of millions of pound that one partner earned whilst the other shagged around.

In any case in the UK the 50/50 split doesn't apply...so I think this woman is right to carry on her fight for fairer divorce settlements.

Maddog wrote:

Syl wrote:

I don't agree Mags.
If the marriage is short (4 years in this case) and no children are involved, why should the assets be split if one person has contributed all the money and the other person hasn't?
We are not talking of a 2 up and down semi here, we are talking of millions of pound that one partner earned whilst the other shagged around.

In any case in the UK the 50/50 split doesn't apply...so I think this woman is right to carry on her fight for fairer divorce settlements.

Here I Texas, only the increase in assets would be split. A  person worth a million entering a 4 year marriage would get to keep that money.  The split would be over any increases to that million over the 4 year period.  

magica wrote:Thing is Syl, if the boot was on the other foot, she would expect half and probably get it.

The fact they've only been married four years, I think maybe not half but million or so.

Women have had it their way for many years, what's good for them is good for the man.