UNEXPECTED LOSSES
However harsh Mr Myerson may think the decision of the Court of Appeal yesterday, surely it was correct. Briefly, Mr Myerson sought leave to appeal against a divorce settlement to which he had consented in March 2008 because since that time and as a result of the recession his wealth has shrunk from the £14.6 million he should have had as a result of the consent order to minus £539,000. The Court of Appeal however decided that on the basis of settled legal principles, for which see John Bolch’s helpful blog at Family Lore, there was no justification for latitude.
Putting the decision into context it, of course, now hits on the head the possibility of all those who have paid over the odds for their spouse’s share in the family home, reclaiming part of the purchase price. It excludes those who hung onto equities from coming back as a result of their losses. It stops those who accepted cash, on the basis that it would earn massive sums in interest from which they could live without drawing the capital, from seeking more. It also prevents all those divorcees who just went and blew it at the races from seeking compensation because their horse didn’t come in!
Putting the decision into context it, of course, now hits on the head the possibility of all those who have paid over the odds for their spouse’s share in the family home, reclaiming part of the purchase price. It excludes those who hung onto equities from coming back as a result of their losses. It stops those who accepted cash, on the basis that it would earn massive sums in interest from which they could live without drawing the capital, from seeking more. It also prevents all those divorcees who just went and blew it at the races from seeking compensation because their horse didn’t come in!
Comments