BoxRec

bigped wrote:

Matchfixer wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:I think it is absolutely scandalous that someone should be entitled to 50% of your future earnings, for fornicating what? It fornicating makes me sick, what a chiselling bitch!

I don't even think she deserves half of his past earnings, it's Calzaghe who took the punches in there not her, if she wants a cushy life, go get a bloody job!

Why do blokes always get taken to the cleaners in these cases, when was the last time anyone heard of a bloke getting money off of a woman when they separate?

Do blokes always get taken to the cleaners though?

I think the first time a woman has done really well was the recent case involving footballer Ray Parlour.

Has joe got kids?? can anyone tell me about parlour case was their kids invovled??

Yes kids involoved so perhaps that makes a difference.

Even so I am not very impressed with it.

Read all about it here

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0% ... %2C00.html

I'm all for having a bit of a theraputic moan about the fairer sex but, blimey, this has turned into a bit of a hate-fest, hasn't it.

Don't forget that 1000s of divorces happen every day where the two parties amicably agree to a settlement. And for every grasping woman there's a husband that doesn't want to stump up to support the kids he's brought into the world. For your normal people, divorced women tend to earn considerably less than widowed or married women, or divorced men. That's including alimoney payments. Plus they're usually the ones bringing up the kids (now, the courts nigh-on automatically deciding the children should go to the mother is a whole other arument altogether...). That's the reality for the common-or-garden divorcee, not this celebrity nonsense. Celeb weddings tend to end more acrimoniously (and 50% of all future earnings is a pisstake however you look at it) with more shouting matches about money, but they don't call it the root of all evil for nothing, lads.

Anyway, why let little things like the facts get in the way of making sweeping generalisations about 50% of the population...

If you want to call anyone names, may I suggest the high-priced lawyers, who I'm sure do absolutely do not goad their celeb clients into a high-profile bust-up, rather than an amicable settlement that keeps the couple, their business and their kids out of the press?

nickd wrote: I'm not saying she deserves half at all. But he made a rod for his own back sticking his cock in anything that moved - now he wants sympathy? The blokes a complete pudendum.

That's not the Nick I knew, this bird must have changed you good and proper...

Goz wrote:

nickd wrote: I'm not saying she deserves half at all. But he made a rod for his own back sticking his cock in anything that moved - now he wants sympathy? The blokes a complete pudendum.

That's not the Nick I knew, this bird must have changed you good and proper...

Not at all mate, but I think him trying to play hard done by when he's been shagging about is pathetic. And I just think he's a pudendum anyway.

Can't believe I am discussing divorce law on a boxing forum but never mind. The Parlour case is a good judicial decision setting out a reasoned analysis of divorce proceeds.

Nowhere does it say that a spouse gets 50% of the future earnings - for those of you who want to read the proper analysis of the position see below:

Parlour - A Whole New Ball Game?


The recent Court of Appeal decision in the Ray Parlour case has been widely reported and hailed by many as groundbreaking in its nature. There are however many misconceptions over the true implications of the judgement. It does not for example entitle every wife on divorce to a third of her husband’s future income.

What it does do however is provide the Courts with a greater flexibility in their exercise of the principles of fairness. The briefing note will address these issues.

The Facts of Parlour

Ray Parlour is a successful Premiership footballer, who until very recently had spent his entire professional career with Arsenal Football Club. At the time the judgement in the case was issued, he was nearing the end of a 5-year contract with the club, and at 31 years old was considered to be approaching the ‘twilight’ years of his playing career.

He and Mrs Parlour married in 1998, after an 8-year relationship, including 3 years of cohabitation. They had 3 children together, before separating in 2001. Mr Parlour’s net income of £1.2m was the only marital income.

At the time the case was referred to the Court of Appeal matters relating to the division of capital between Mr and Mrs Parlour had been resolved by agreement – Mrs Parlour would receive 37.5% of the matrimonial assets. She also sought a similar percentage of Mr Parlour’s future income for the remainder of the parties’ lives. It was this issue the Court of Appeal was asked to consider.

THE LEGAL BACKGROUND

Pursuit of the ‘Clean Break’

The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (as amended) provides the Court with a recognised duty to explore whether financial ties between parties to a divorce can be severed in full. The termination of such ties is known as a ‘clean break’, and its main purpose is to encourage the parties to put the past behind them and begin a ‘new life’. To effect a clean break the Court must be satisfied that the needs and entitlements of both parties have been addressed in full.

A clean break is often achieved by providing the lower income earner with a larger capital lump sum, effectively ‘capitalising’ their maintenance entitlement.

High income/low capital divorces by their very nature do not lend themselves to the ‘clean break’ philosophy. There is inevitably insufficient capital available to provide the homemaker with sufficient to remove the need for continued maintenance. Financial ties cannot be severed and the main earner often has a continued and indefinite maintenance liability to the ex-spouse.

In Parlour the Court of Appeal recognised this problem and sought to provide a solution whereby a clean break could be achieved.

Capital vs. Income

Courts have in the past sought to draw a very definite line between ‘Income’ and ‘Capital’. Such a practice has traditionally assisted both the Courts and parties’ legal advisors in constructing distinct formulae for dealing with each financial area. By maintaining this distinct separation between capital and income practitioners have addressed one-off capital requirements and those more recurrent income needs as completely separate entities.

The Court of Appeal in Parlour took a step back from this traditional approach, recognising the flaws this distinction had in modern society. It is often the case for example that those employed in limited term contracts for high salaries, (such as professional footballers for example), will have only limited capital in comparison, but that this level of capital will increase as surplus income is invested year on year.

The Decision in Summary

In recognising surplus income as ‘future capital’ the Court of Appeal was able to present a means by which a clean break could be effected.

It had already been agreed that Mrs Parlour would receive 37.5% of the capital already in existence. The Court of Appeal looked at this arrangement and ordered a similar proportion of the future capital accruing over the next four to be paid to Mrs Parlour also.

It was ordered that Mrs Parlour should herself contribute to the clean break by responsibly investing the ‘future capital’ sums she receives. In four years’ time the position would be reviewed to see whether Mrs Parlour possessed sufficient capital at that time to allow a clean break to occur.
Such ‘future capital’ was assessed as being the net matrimonial income, less the stated annual needs of the parties and their children.

In addition to this annual ‘capital’ sum, further ‘maintenance’ payments were ordered to meet Mrs Parlour’s income requirements in the interim. This maintenance liability will cease when the Court considers that Mrs Parlour has sufficient capital to justify a clean break, perhaps in four years’ time when the position is reviewed.

In its reporting of the case the media has largely focused its attention on the fact that approximately a third of Mr Parlour’s net income is payable to his wife over the next four years. Whilst this is true, it should be remembered that it was with a view to enabling a clean break to take place in due course that this arrangement was made.

The Impact of Parlour

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Parlour was tailored to meet the circumstances of the Parlour family at that time. Whilst it is therefore in only limited circumstances that a decision of this nature would be deemed appropriate, a high earning professional or executive in his 50s might be equally vulnerable to a Parlour-style order.

Two features would need to exist before the Courts would consider a Parlour-style decision suitable:

a) The income level would be well in excess of the requirements of both the parties and their children.

b) Such income would need to principally be earned by just one spouse

c) There would need to be a level of matrimonial capital insufficient to finance a clean break.

Even where all conditions are satisfied, circumstances may be such that the main breadwinner is able to secure sufficient borrowing against property for instance, in order to finance a clean break. Such an arrangement would be preferable to allowing financial ties to ex-spouses to continue indefinitely.

The Future

Shortly after this decision was released, Ray Parlour moved clubs to Middlesborough on a 3-year contract for a reduced salary. This means the decision is likely to return to Court to be reviewed.

The Parlour judgment does however remain a binding one, and there are a number of ‘celebrity’ divorce matters in progress that could be significantly affected by the decision.

Several Premiership footballers presently divorcing may find themselves in this situation, (including England goalkeeper, David James). The divorce of Jude Law from Sadie Frost is also attracting much media interest since the Parlour decision. With Jude Law’s annual income estimated to be in excess of £35 million, the reasons why are not hard to uncover.