Filed in World Divorce News
This New Zealand divorce case is interesting for all the wrong reasons. Apparently, husband and wife were married 28 years. She gave up her career to be wife and mother – allegedly. He is a highly accomplished and successful surgeon. So time comes for the divorce. What does the court do? The Court awards WIFE seventy percent (70%) of the marital assets – all physically earned by the husband in his medical career!
What does husband do? He appeals of course. But guess what? He LOSES the appeal! An appellate court in New Zealand felt that the lower court was correct and that this was a fair distribution and gave the husband 30 percent of his own hard work and assets and seventy percent to the wife!
This is an outrage. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE. How is this fair??? Of course everyone wants divorce settlements to be fair and even-sided but how is this fair in anybody’s sound judgment? These types of rulings encourage marital violence and divorce fatalities and this is socially irresponsibe. Judges and courts need to refrain from legislating from the bench and stick to the facts and to the law and to what is FAIR if we want families to emerge from this implosion of life as they know it, in one piece. This is not to instigate or encourage anyone to do anything untoward but it is to say that the laws, around the world, have to be fair for both sides. Men and women need to get a fair shake otherwise we, as a society, have blood on our hands when somebody goes berserk in these types of situations and take matters into their own hands. Read an excerpt from this blog:
A highly paid Wellington surgeon’s attempt to stop his ex-wife from walking away with a $1.3 million divorce settlement has been rejected by the High Court.
The court has confirmed the woman is by law entitled to 70 per cent of the couple’s matrimonial assets, after considering an appeal against a Family Court ruling.
The High Court judgment released on Tuesday shows the couple separated in 2008 after 28 years of marriage.
The woman said she had given up her career to take care of their children and support her husband’s career.
When their marriage broke down, he was at the peak of his career earning up to $1 million a year.
She managed to find work as a receptionist, earning less than $30,000 a year.
In 2013 Judge Pat Grace ruled in the Family Court that a 70/30 division of the relationship property pool favouring the wife was appropriate.
The assets accumulated during the couple’s marriage amounted to $1.9m, which meant the wife is entitled to $1.3m.
The husband appealed Judge Grace’s decision in February this year on the grounds that the amount was too high, and that it was inappropriate to compensate his ex-wife for a disparity in earning capacity.
One of the issues the court had considered was whether the wife’s role as a homemaker had enhanced her husband’s earning capacity and career and diminished her own career prospects.
Honestly, this case just doesn’t sound right. The result just doesn’t sound right. She certainly did not do most of the work in his business. He was the surgeon. He did the actual work. At best, the court could have gone 50/50. This 30/70 split is bogus. It is hard to respect this type of judicial decision. Clearly, we must not have all the information. Because otherwise this is a travesty.