Woman Wins Right To Claim Cash From Ex Twenty Years After Divorce

Divorce settlement

A woman whose relationship ended in divorce 20 years ago has won a landmark Supreme Court ruling to the right to claim cash from her ex-husband.

The BBC reports:

Kathleen Wyatt, 55, had lodged the claim against Dale Vince, 53, who has become a multi-millionaire.

Mr Vince had previously appealed successfully against Ms Wyatt's claim on the basis that it was too late.

According to various reports, the couple were "penniless" when they divorced but Mr Vince is now a multi-millionaire, while his ex-wife has struggled to raise their son due to financial hardship.

I haven't yet drunk enough coffee this morning to be sure about what I think of this. I know some people think it's an unjust ruling, and that a person shouldn't have access to their partner's cash twenty years after the relationship ended, but where there's a child involved I think that changes things.

Should parents support their kids when their relationship breaks down? Absolutely. Is it fair to demand what amounts to a back payment if that hasn't happened over a period of many years? Yes, I think so.

What's your view? Should you be able to claim a financial settlement from your ex-partner many years after the relationship ends?Or should there be a time limit for ex-spouses to apply for cash after a couple divorce?

TOPICS:   Community Favourites


  • martinmarv
    She's won the right to go to court, but not yet to claim cash. (the BBC article is misleading)
  • Farab
    Should you be able to claim a financial settlement ... NO Should you contribute to the cost of raising your child ... YES Why is then when kids are involved, the knee-jerk reaction is a financial settlement or some other form of payment to the person looking after the child. Their is no reason for your ex to benefit after the divorce, especially one from 20 years ago. BUT, you should contribute towards 50% (or a greater amount if you choose) of the cost of bringing up the child. This guarantees that the person who is due something (the child) gets the full benefit of what is given.
  • astonize32
    Ok if there's a kid he should give money to his kid who should be about twenty years old now but she shouldn't get any if the moneys for his son fair enough but you cant demand money from him twenty years later
  • daveium
    I agree it's not fair for him to sit there with millions while his ex pays for everything for his kid, but it should be clear that *she* is not entitled to his money as the title suggests, but it is for his kid's upbringing for whom he has a share of responsibility. Somewhere in there though they need to take into account his access to the kid, if he wasn't interested in seeing the kid then fine, but if she denied him access then she can't exactly claim he should be paying half unless he has access to be part of his own kid's upbringing. What is right and wrong here comes down to a load of facts that aren't mentioned at all in this story.
  • partz
    the child in question has been living with his father since he was 17 or 18, and now (at the age of 31) works for his fathers company - therefore is well looked after! She should not be entitled to a claim on his money now the divorce was over 30 years ago and the children that live with her now are not his and adults too.

What do you think?

Your comment