The wife of British footballer, Ray Parlour (of Arsenal) has won a landmark court award giving her an unprecedented right to take half of his future wage earnings. Already comments are flying out to the effect that this ruling makes a mockery of marriage arrangements, giving further amunition to gold-digging spouses with an eye on their partner’s wealth.
I do not know about the full particulars of the Parlour case – for all I know the ex-Mrs P. may have justice on her side – but developments like this make me fear for the future of marriage. Rulings like this give out a bad message, telling people that marriage is even more of a lottery than before and that a man or woman who hit difficulties in their relationship can endure heavy demands on their income for years to come. Given the pattern of child custody arrangements after divorce, I can predict that most of such heavy wage demands will be borne by men (though women could also be affected if they were divorced from a former “house husband”).
I would like to know what those with legal knowledge think about this ruling. Does it really fundamentally alter the marriage contract, and will it put potential super-high earners off marriage? What is for sure is that pre-nuptial agreements currently have no legal standing in Britain, as they do in some other countries, such as the United States.
In my view, couples should be able to make whatever kind of marriage agreements that suit them best, such as pre-nups and the rest, and the State should be kicked out of the field. Another part of our life overdue, I feel, for a dose of Thatcherite privatisation.
The whole concept of such settlements is ridiculous. they’re designed for a time when women didn’t work, so an ex-wife needed her financial hand held. Nowadays they’re just extortion
Just to add to the general chorus of disapproval, I’d add that the judgement, as discussed on the BBC today, had a particularly nasty statist/socialist edge to it.
It appears that a good part of the bewigged fools’ reasoning (sic) stemmed from the fact that the footballer in question had ‘surplus’ money. In other words, because he was extremely highly paid, their lordships thought it ‘only fair’ that Mrs Footballer got her snout deeply into the trough.
And yes, I am utterly convinced that fear of this sort of settlement is one of several factors militating against marriage. Indeed, several men have said this to me recently as an explanation of why they would never even consider marriage as an alternative to the currently fashionable ‘partner’ status.
In the light of this ludicrous judgement, I can quite see their point!
Poor old Romford Ray!
Up the Gunners!!!
As someone who is going through a particularly unpleasant divorce right at the moment, I’d like to thank the judge personally for adding additional stress to an already miserable experience.
The link you provide states:
The reasoning for awarding her the money was that she apparently “rescued the footballer’s career”. ISTM she’d have already got considerable benefit from that when they were together.
Basically this implies that if the ex-spouse thinks they somehow helped your career they can claim a large chunk of your future earnings.
When this footballer is too old to play any more, will he be able to seek financial support from his ex-wife in the event that she has invested her windfall wisely? I think not.
The laws here in the UK are fundamentally misandrist when it comes to marriage and divorce, and are especially biased against men when it comes to visitation rights etc.
No rational man would contemplate marriage (as opposed to “living in sin”) in such cicumstances. After all, it provides few tangible benefits and seemingly infinite potential liabilities.
As law becomes less sensible – other options that would previously have been unthinkable take on a greater apparent sense especially when fired by hatred that such ham-fisted judgements fuel: Payments are easily stopped …. with a ‘judicious’ application of murder.
on the other hand can a husband get reduced maintainace payments on the ground that his wife was a break on his career?
After all thats should logicaly follow from our lardships jusdgement.
If it makes anyone feel any better, Britney Spears has hooked up with some penniless mimbo, and her parents are going nuts trying to convince her to get a prenup. Under California law, he’d walk away with half the lot.
Not that I’m implying her marriage would be unstable or anything.
Just don’t hope that avoiding marriage will make you safe from this sort of interference for long. I expect this proposal will be back when the opportunity arises, leading to some interesting cases around what constitutes living together.
Since it is already inadvisable to have any physical contact with another person without professional advice and adequate documentation, then there’s an obvious gap in the regulatory framework between dating and marriage.
Interesting article.
As someone contemplating marriage right now I wonder if there are any legal experts reading who can advise
whether marrying in another jurisdiction would help
to limit the liability. Can one have pre-nupped wedding in the states and then live in the UK and enjoy protection per contract?
The same thought occured to me Paul. But, as I understand it, if your wife sues for divorce in the same country where you hold your assets then they are attachable by the courts – pre-nup or no. I don’t know how effective it would be to put all your UK assets into an offshore trust or company, I suspect you’d have to be pretty devious to put it beyond the reach of the courts and you’d certainly have to forget about that joint mortgage.
Or alternatively have a recognised, legal contract setting out your obligations to each other- call it a “free-union” so that there is virtually nothing for the courts to do, because it’s all been said up front. And get the state the hell out of religious marriages. With no bias against anyone (including gays)…
Sorry to interject some logic in to the current laws….
“What is for sure is that pre-nuptial agreements currently have no legal standing in Britain, as they do in some other countries, such as the United States.” Not true, if there are any children (of this or any future marriages). Any children acquired by either party in any circumstances after a pre-nuptial agreement, even after the divorce, invalidate that agreement.
hello some one i need a contract marriage
hello some one i need a contract marriage thanks
henry.you can con tact me
hacoven_4eva@yahoo.com i am a male of 30