In more light-hearted news, have you, folks, heard about the Ecotricity scandal?
Back in 1992, a guy in the UK got divorced from his wife. Three years after the divorce, he created a wind-power company. The Green energy enthusiast ended up making millions (as he rightfully should with such a great business idea.)
And now the wife sues him for a massive payout. Because she believes herself to be entitled to the money this guy made years after dumping her useless ass.
But the UK’s Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that once you get married, nothing – not even divorce – can terminate the ex-spouse’s entitlement to your property. So the useless ass will get paid for having once found herself in the vicinity of somebody who much later managed to make some money. Yes, I know, I’m confused, too. I guess one has to be British to figure it out.
I don’t even know what to say about this instance of extreme bizarredom.
Clarissa's Blog 
There’s usually more to these stories…
The ex-wife may have convinced the UK court that while married, she contributed significantly to the plans/ideas that eventually made her husband rich. (I don’t know the details of this specific case, but have learned that you can’t take headlines like “Cops gun down granny walking her dog” at face value.)
LikeLike
I can’t imagine any argument that I would consider reasonable here. And the precedent this sets is monstrous.
LikeLike
“while married, she contributed significantly to the plans/ideas that eventually made her husband rich”
Tough titty. If she didn’t stay married to him she has no moral right to his post-divorce earnings.
If that was her line of reasoning, then the judges in UK courts are using horse manure for brains (an easy conclusion to come to for all sorts of bizarre legal decisions in the UK).
LikeLike
Plans and ideas are a dime a dozen. From plans and ideas to a multimillion business, there is a long road of blood, sweat and tears.
Let’s note also that with her, he was a poor homeless schmuck. And without her he became an ultra successful professional. Different relationships push us towards different roles.
LikeLike
Clarissa, I wish you were correct. Laws very by state — rather extreme variation at that. I’m still fighting with my ex 10 years after the “divorce settlement.”
LikeLike
Are you serious? ? This is crazy.
LikeLike
Very. BTW, the redneck would appear to be the US version of vatnik, and many of them are local judges, especially in the south and midwest.
LikeLike
“BTW, the redneck would appear to be the US version of vatnik, and many of them are local judges, especially in the south and midwest.”
:-)))))))))))))
LikeLike
Not meant to be funny. I know of a case in Maine where a “good ol boy” judge gave a man a $25 fine for beating up his wife. There’s a recent case in Texas in which a man got three years probation (no jail time) for a rape. These redneck judges will often impose their political views rather than the law. Arguably, the worst of these judges appear in Family Court, the division that handles divorce.
LikeLike
I had no idea it was this bad. I apologize. I really couldn’t have imagined.
LikeLike
AFAIK she did try to get money from her ex and a lower court denied her the chance to sue, claiming there is no way any of this mans fortune could belong to her. She then disputed the lower courts decision in a higher court.
The higher court then decided to allow her to bring this in front of a judge because there is a theoretical possibility for her to have a valid claim on this.
This does not mean she got anything yet, it means she has been given the chance to prove her claim. And will probably be laughed at for trying.
But this of course is not as click-baity for UK newspapers as titeling about how your horrible ex will try and steal the clothes from your body 😉
LikeLike
I do find the idea that she might have a valid claim to be extremely offensive. This is a frivolous claim if there ever was one. It should have been turned around before even reaching a courtroom.
LikeLike
The article suggest that the only reason this has not been turned around is the kids (or at least their one biological child) were still minors when his financial situation improved. (I don’t know when he started making a lot of money from the company.There’s nothing about 2011 which suggests why she chose to sue then.) But I find it hard to believe there’s no statute of limitations for child support. And I don’t think that he should be legally obligated to support her.
The stories I’ve heard from people make me believe that a bad marriage or relationship is escapable if you don’t have a child with that person. Once you have a kid, that person is in your life for decades. If your kid is the result of rape, your rapist can sue for custody and visitation rights.
LikeLike
“Once you have a kid, that person is in your life for decades.”
LikeLike
Until September 2014, New Jersey followed the concept of permanent alimony. If married more than 10 years, alimony would continue for the lifetime of either person. This has been modified, but the modification doesn’t apply to divorces prior to that date. Such as me.
LikeLike
I’m completely opposed to the very concept of alimony. I find it offensive on every level.
You have my support!
LikeLike