Rodgers' wife wants 51 house and half his wages.
- Thread starter Rosco
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
We aren't privy as to how the assets were required. For all we know they could have been acquired off the back of her own inheritance. I'm assuming they met at an early age, got married, had kids. They were a team and a family unit who made decision together. Rodgers became successful in his managerial career which afforded them a lavish lifestyle. Now they are split she'll be entitled to receive x amount to return her to the standard of living she was accustomed to or a standard where she can cope independently. Case closed really. Hopefully they both find happiness elsewhere.
So in essence she's making her case for as big a slice of the cake as possible based on what she put in to it.
If it's not a "flat rate" applicable to each and every case then it must be founded on whatever assets the relationship developed.
2 kids.
I'm pretty sure the law treats marriage like a contractual relationship entered into by any two people. It's nothing to do with their lives, and who's right or wrong, or who should be rewarded. It's just a bastardized version of contract law principles, with a little bit of additional lip-service given to the welfare of the kids.
Except, this contract between them isn't written down, hasn't been drafted by a solicitor with tonnes of clauses and conditions, it's just a vague agreement depending upon who said what when. So as long as you are prepared to lie, you can convince the court that your particular marriage contract entitled you to millions and millions, and then roll the dice, see what happens and if you get lucky. I would do the same, why not because fresh after the break-up you have sufficient hatred of the other person. It's what you get for entering into a contract based on your penis.
Except, this contract between them isn't written down, hasn't been drafted by a solicitor with tonnes of clauses and conditions, it's just a vague agreement depending upon who said what when. So as long as you are prepared to lie, you can convince the court that your particular marriage contract entitled you to millions and millions, and then roll the dice, see what happens and if you get lucky. I would do the same, why not because fresh after the break-up you have sufficient hatred of the other person. It's what you get for entering into a contract based on your penis.
Is it because sometimes his daughter could be taken to pass for an additional son?
Maybe don't stick your dick in the office travel coordinator and you won't run into such bother.
I would think in most cases it's a joint decision.
Or marry a troll before getting rich. Sometimes you've got back yourself.
Yep.... I know.... imagine standing in front of someone and swearing you'll stick with them for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, until death us do part.
And then not.
And then suggesting some sort of compensation "flat rate" that isn't a flat rate but is based on lots of conditions (as long as it isn't a percentage of the financially dominant partner).
Yep.
I'd go with bonkers.
He slipped this in earlier too: Women couldn't give a flying fuck who he manages when he's earning that wedge. 'yeah liverchester utd, awesome. We still going to Tiffany's this afternoon?'
It's cool though, he's not talking about Mr Rodgers. He's talking 'bout bitches.
If they were acquired jointly it can only have been done so to avoid Rodgers paying tax. In which case his gamble has gone a little bit wrong, and to save a few hundred thousand in tax it will cost him half his portfolio. It is not too different from his transfer policy to be honest.
Mark would be on him if he talked about Rodgers.
In agreement with the first para. She has every right to, and it is logical that someone who puts in more into a marriage should be entitled to more than someone like a WAG etc. No quarrel with that.
Don't agree with the bolded part. Or rather I don't understand it.
If the couple developed assets jointly, they should be jointly held.
If the husband holds the assets exclusively in his own name, the law says they are *his* assets. That's property law.
Are you saying that maintenance law should stipulate that once a man/woman gets married, any property purchased in his/her name should be deemed to be a joint asset?! That's an utterly ridiculous and unfair proposition.
I think it's better if we broke this down into two simple questions about maintenance law?
1. What should be the starting point of negotiations (from the perspective of the law) for maintenance? -
My answer in terms of the other spouse's assets is 0%
2. Who should the burden of proof lie on?
My answer is the spouse claiming maintenance.
I'm assuming your answers are 50% and the spouse defending maintenance. That to me is very unreasonable.
I think it should be jointly owned, yes, unless you do something to say otherwise, like a pre-nup or whatever. The whole idea is that you are equal and share everything, and you should have to make exceptions to deal with it otherwise.
Are you saying if a couple, married in law, purchase a property or properties, then they aren't jointly owned.
Does that mean if one parent spends more time with the kids then they aren't jointly owned.
Maybe The solution is that the ex takes possession of the children, since she brought them up and charges Rodgers a "flat fee" every time he has any interaction with the "family assets" she put her effort in to raising.
Maybe she can determine what the rate for phone conversations with their daughter is.
I think what he's saying is that she should be compensated on the basis of the wages of a maid and nanny.
Now that is an interesting suggestion.
Instead of separating Rodgers' career from their marriage like you have previously done, you now suggest a monetary price on the children.
How much should Rodgers have to pay for seeing his kids?
Because he has to pay right, otherwise he has no right to see them.Them being a commodity and all...belonging to her.
From her point of view, how much ransom should the wife demand for Rodgers to be able to see his kids occasionally? Hmm...
dmishra has interpreted my arguments correctly and I agree with everything else that he's added.
Sorry, don't really have time to reply to specific posts.
Sorry, don't really have time to reply to specific posts.
Perhaps my knowledge of English law is actually non-existent, so I'll ask someone to clarify. Are married couples taxed as one unit in the UK? If they are, then a lot of my arguments will need to be revisited.
The legal system I come from (which is largely based on English common law) does not tax a married couple as one unit. The two individuals are treated separately, as having separate sources of income, and having individual property rights.
So to answer your question in my legal sytem, I can say categorically that it would be 'his' money and not 'their' money. The law doesn't recognise 'their' money at all.
- Status
