Thursday, 21 October 2010

Split Assets


The UK’s Supreme Court (my God, that sounds so American and does not trip easily from my tongue) has ruled that a German heiress’ pre-nuptial agreement is valid in the UK.

What idiot first thought up the assumption that when a married couple split everything is shared equally? For heaven’s sake, decisions to marry are usually taken when the balance of one’s mind is disturbed; it’s under the influence of dopamine, phenylethylamine and oxytocin. The effect floods virtually all of the brain 'clouding out' other thoughts and leaving the unfortunate sufferer unable to make any reasoned assessment of the suitability of the loved one.

I wonder whether that could be used as a just cause for divorce? Can’t see why not!

It is eminently fair and logical that each party should be able to exit a relationship with what they brought to it at the start, rather than the estate being split equally in its entirety. Sure, split anything accumulated following the marriage, but not that accumulated severally and independently before succumbing to a chemical cacophony.

The worrying thing is that the decision was 8:1, meaning the issue is not clear-cut and open to opinion. Seems they make up the law as they go along.


2 comments:

  1. Hi Bill. Your post taught me a lot.

    The law is a ass, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Don't I know it! After 36 years of marital bliss (I don't think!) She divorced me and went off with another man. She got the house (which I owned before I even met her!), the contents, 90% of the savings, and my car.

    The excuse the horsey-faced fat frump of a magistrate said "I will not put a woman on the streets because she cannot fend for herself, but a man can, so I'm awarding her. . . .(see previous paragraph).

    As soon as I saw the judge in her tweedy suit and a face like a slapped arse I knew I was stuffed!

    ReplyDelete