Divorce News

(As reported in the Telegraph)

 

With divorce rates soaring, and widespread worries about a new culture of hyper-materialism, the Chinese government is now trying to stop women marrying for money.

 

In China's booming cities, prospective husbands are now routinely vetted about whether they own a house, and preferably also a car, before a match can be agreed. Tying the knot without a house as part of the deal is jokingly called a "naked marriage" and widely thought to be a risky choice.

 

"I would choose a luxury house over a boyfriend that always makes me happy without hesitation," said one 24-year-old contestant on If You Are the One, one of China's most popular television dating shows. "And my boyfriend has to have a monthly salary of 200,000 yuan (£18,900)," she demanded.

 

In a bid to temper the rising expectations of Chinese women, China's Supreme Court has now ruled that from now on, the person who buys the family home, or the parents who advance them the money, will get to keep it after divorce.

 

"Hopefully this will help educate younger people, especially younger women, to be more independent, and to think of marriage in the right way rather than worshipping money so much," said Hu Jiachu, a lawyer in Hunan province.

 

The ruling should also help relieve some of the burden on young Chinese men, many of whom fret about the difficulty of buying even a small apartment. China's huge property bubble has driven property prices in Shanghai up to £5,000 per square metre when annual salaries average just £6,000.

 

"There are more and more girls who want to marry rich men and improve their financial position. It has been a really notable increase," said Wang Zhiguo, a consultant at Baihe, a Beijing-based matchmaking website.

 

"Most pretty girls now try to trade on their beauty. It is an unhealthy trend and the government is now trying to restrict it," he added.

 

"Having said that, money has always been an important concern when it comes to marriage. In the 1950s and 1960s, women chased after the top Communist cadres because they were guaranteed a good life. In the 1980s, when the economy opened, businessmen became sought-after.

 

Chinese people have always been materialistic, but today's hot commodity is property." According to the latest statistics, there were 2.68 million divorces in China last year and divorces have multiplied at almost the same speed as China's economy has grown: by seven per cent a year for the past five years.

 

In particular, more than a third of all marriages in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou now end in divorce, and the fastest-growing segment of society is those aged 25 to 34. Almost half of all divorces see a court squabble over the family assets.

 

The growing popularity of divorce runs contrary to traditional Chinese culture, and newly-weds used to be warned on their wedding day that their marriage had to last "until your hair turns white". Just eight years ago, couples still needed written permission from employers or their neighbourhood committee to end a marriage.

 

"With 5,000 divorces a day, it is an appalling number for Chinese people. Our families are the basic unit of society that maintains stability. The government has had to change the marriage law to keep society stable. Usually the courts now rule, in the first instance, that couples cannot divorce. They have to come back after six months if they insist on one," said Mr Hu.

 

Chang Xueli, 26, a graphic designer in Beijing is one of the few Chinese women willing to risk a "naked marriage", despite the initial misgivings of her parents. "My husband is from quite a poor family, and I am from quite a well-off family," she said. "My parents tried to set me up with someone with a house, because they wanted the best for me, but I did not have any feelings for them.

 

"I used to think I had to have both a man I loved and a house to get married. But then I realised sometimes you need to make a choice," she said. "Now I guess the dream is for both a husband and a wife to own a house."

 

 

As reported on bbc.co.uk

 

Protection previously afforded to thousands of people in divorce proceedings has been removed following a landmark Court of Appeal judgement. 

 

Until now a husband or wife who came across information showing their partner was hiding money could copy it, use it and put it before the courts. 

 

But the court reversed the principle, intended to help the financially weak, in a case involving a millionaire. 

 

Lawyers have described the judgement as "ground-breaking".

 

It comes after property tycoons Robert and Vincent Tchenguiz attempted to use information about the financial affairs of their sister's multi-millionaire husband at her divorce hearing.

 

Following the ruling, they must comply with a High Court order to hand back to Vivian Imerman the documents copied from a computer.

 

Mr Imerman, a businessman, shared the Mayfair offices and a computer with the brothers from 2002 until February last year when he and his staff were evicted.

 

He successfully claimed that the brothers, two IT staff and a solicitor had no right to retain or use the material which was downloaded without his knowledge.

 

'Unintended consequences'

 

 

 

(As reported in the Telegraph)

 

The ex-wife of the Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky shattered the record for a British divorce payout today when she accepted a settlement worth up to £220 million. 

 

At a High Court hearing lasting just ten minutes, Galina Besharova, 52, was given what sources confirmed was the “largest award ever”.

 

Mr Berezovsky, 64, agreed to what was described as an “amicable settlement” after admitting unreasonable behaviour.

 

The previous UK record was a £48m award to the ex-wife of the insurance millionaire John Charman in 2006.

 

Mr Berezovsky’s fortune is estimated at £550m, meaning his wife could have demanded £275m based on a 50:50 split. Divorce law experts said the couple were likely to have thrashed out a deal for between £165m and £220m.

 

After the hearing, Mr Berezovsky said: “I have always believed in British justice and yet again I have been proved right.”

Although the exact terms of the settlement are confidential, the assets awarded to Miss Besharova are understood to include cash, stocks and shares and the penthouse near Kensington Palace in London where she currently lives.

 

The couple had been married for 18 years, but separated after just two years, and for the last 16 years Mr Berezovsky has lived with his current partner, Yelena Gorbunova, 42.

 

Miss Besharova, who has two children by the oil millionaire, is said to have filed for divorce only after becoming irritated that Miss Gorbunova was constantly referred to as Mr Berezovsky’s “wife”. The couple were granted a divorce in just 45 seconds at a High Court hearing exactly a year ago.

 

Richard Todd QC, representing Miss Besharova told Mrs Justice Eleanor King in the High Court Family Division the couple “had worked very hard to reach an amicable settlement” of their financial dispute.

 

The judge said: “It does not matter whether the awards are thousands of pounds or hundreds of millions of pounds.

 

“At the end of the day if the husband and wife can reach agreement they can both live with, it bodes much better for their future welfare and for the children of the family and to continue working for the benefit of all of them.

 

“It is completely appropriate for me to approve this order and I am very happy to do so, and my congratulations to all concerned.”

 

Neither of the parties were in court and neither of the legal teams would say how much the settlement was for, but one source said: “It is the largest award ever and the judge gave a clue.”

 

David Pickering, a divorce law expert at the law firm DWF, said: “After an 18-year marriage the starting point would have been a 50:50 division of assets, but the husband’s legal team would have argued for a discount on the basis of any wealth he brought into the marriage and other factors such as him taking on a higher risk in terms of keeping shares as opposed to cash, which is risk-free.

 

“The settlement will have been for between 30 and 40 per cent of his total wealth, which would be between £165m and £220m.”

 

Mr Berezovsky said in the court papers that he had no intention of defending the petition and asked if he objected to paying the costs he replied: “No – subject to assessment.”

 

His ex-wife was represented by Deborah Levy at WGS Solicitors. 

 

Mr Berezovsky, whose first marriage also ended in divorce, married his second wife in 1991, after setting up the first Mercedes dealership in Moscow and building it up into a chain that was later sold for £350m.

 

He increased his fortune by investing in the Sibneft oil business, but after the rise of Vladimir Putin he fled Russia in 2000 and was granted political asylum in the UK.

 

He has two further children with Miss Gorbunova, and has said in the past that he intended to marry her once his divorce was finalised.

(As reported in the Telegraph)

 

Britain has become the destination of choice for high rollers to get a divorce sparking judicial concern that the rich and powerful are exploiting the courts. 

 

In recent years the British courts have gained an international reputation for awarding extremely generous settlements to the wives of wealthy men embroiled in high profile divorce cases.

 

The concern comes amid claims that getting a divorce is easier than obtaining a driving licence, according to a senior judge.

 

Sir Paul Coleridge, a Family Division judge, warned that family breakdown affects everyone including the Royal Family.

 

He suggested people need to "re-educate" themselves about the value of stable relationships for the good of the whole of society.

 

About 3.8 million children are estimated to be caught up in the family justice system, with no sign of that number coming down.

 

His calls come amid concerns among the highest levels of the legal system about the growing levels of high cost divorces.

 

Last year a judge strongly criticised foreign nationals who use the British divorce courts to settle their disputes, despite having little connection to this country.

 

Lord Justice Thorpe made the remarks during the latest twist in the “bitter and unruly” divorce battle between Russian tycoon Ilva Golubovich and his former wife Elena.

 

Both parties have used delaying tactics at the courts in London and Moscow and racked up legal costs in excess of £2.25 million during their long running dispute.

 

Mrs Golubovich, 26, had been attempting to secure a British divorce in the hope of gaining a more generous settlement from her 24-year-old ex-husband, while he has been seeking a Russian decree nisi.

 

While three appeal judges accepted that his Russian divorce was valid they heavily criticised the couple’s use of UK court time.

 

In March the Russian student was awarded £2.8 million after the 18-month marriage in a settlement her ex-husband’s lawyer claimed could turn Britain into the “divorce capital of the world”.

 

Last year London’s reputation as the divorce payout capital of the world was bolstered after a Nigerian woman managed to increase her settlement to £275,000, almost 10 times her original settlement, after bringing her case to the Supreme Court.

Elin Nordegren's dignified dismissal of Tiger Woods is a lesson to all wronged women, says Linda Kelsey as reported in the Daily Telegraph

 

There was expectation of a big bang. But when it came to it, it was more of a dignified whimper. Having safely landed an estimated 100 million of Tiger Woods’ dollars in her divorce settlement – and getting away without agreeing to a confidentiality clause – Elin Nordegren could have been forgiven for bludgeoning her love-rat ex with a metaphorical four iron (as opposed to the actual one she was rumoured to have brandished when she first heard about his infidelity). But in an emotionally controlled interview with US People magazine yesterday, Nordegren achieved a public relations triumph by focusing less on her anger at Woods’s bad behaviour and more on the hurt and humiliation he caused her to suffer. 

 

Her heartfelt, simply stated response, which spoke of sadness rather than revenge, sounded more convincing to my ears than the kind of celebrity soundbites you usually hear trotted out at the end of a marriage. This wasn’t just a wronged celebrity wife with a few killer lines up her designer sleeves, it was a real woman expressing what real women feel. She could have been any woman who had been cheated on, regardless of whether her husband was one of the richest sportsmen in the world and his extramarital affairs played out across the world’s media.

 

“I never suspected,” she told People magazine. “I’ve been through hell. It’s hard to think you have this life and then all of a sudden – was it a lie?” She added, “I felt stupid as more things were revealed – how could I not have known anything? The word betrayal isn’t strong enough. I felt like my whole world had fallen apart.” 

 

Doesn’t this sound just like all the women you know who have been cheated on? Don’t you just want to give this wronged wife a hug and tell her it will all be all right? 

 

According to Bridie Collins, head of relationship education at Marriage Care, Nordegren’s comments closely mirror the emotions her clients express in counselling. “I picked up this sense of her feeling foolish and naïve, which is commonly how women feel. There is this sense of hopelessness, and the question how can I ever trust again?” 

 

So a birdie to Nordegren for eliciting worldwide sympathy. And a hole in one for portraying herself as a victim without being vengeful, hopefully making Woods feel even more guilty and ashamed than he already does… or at least ought to. 

 

Baring your soul as Nordegren has done is not, of course, the only way to deal with betrayal . It has become fashionable for wronged wives to kick back with what some would regard as a little more oomph. “I’m looking forward to wearing high heels again,” said Nicole Kidman devilishly when her marriage to Tom Cruise ended. That must have surely hit a shorty like Cruise where it hurt. 

 

Jerry Hall, on the other hand, didn’t pack her punches when she referred publicly to Mick Jagger as “the lying, cheating, no-good slimeball”. Diana, Princess of Wales scored a spectacular success on Panorama when she tilted her head in her characteristic way and sighed, “There were three of us in this marriage, so it was a bit crowded.” She added further to her triumph on the night that Prince Charles admitted on TV to adultery, by stepping out of a car at the Serpentine Gallery in a shimmery, split black dress and a dazzling smile. More recently Cheryl Cole, dubbed the nation’s sweetheart, endeared us all when she quietly described the errant Ashley as having “a young mentality for his age”. 

 

As a journalist who often writes about personal experience, I was also faced with the dilemma of how much to reveal when my husband decided to go off on a gap year, prompting the end of our marriage. Although fidelity was not the issue, there were many aspects of the death throes of a long-term relationship that I felt qualified to write about. I wrestled with whether to maintain a dignified silence or honestly express my feelings. In the end I decided to speak out. 

 

Writing about my marriage not only helped me identify what had gone wrong in our relationship but seemed to resonate with the many readers who wrote to me. Whether that’s a justification for what I wrote, I’m not entirely certain. Was there an element of revenge in what I did? I didn’t rant or rave or even apportion blame. I tried to be even-handed, but I can’t be sure that I didn’t get the teeniest bit of satisfaction from exposing my husband’s peccadilloes in public. And since he’s not a journalist I knew he was unlikely to demand a right of reply in print. 

 

Writing as revenge is something of a time-honoured tradition. Taking to heart Ivana Trump’s mantra, “Don’t get mad, get everything”, author Olivia Goldsmith turned her divorce into a bestselling novel and blockbuster movie, The First Wives Club, starring Goldie Hawn. And when Robin Cook, foreign secretary at the time, cheated with his secretary, his wife, Margaret, a doctor, turned to writing. In countless newspaper columns she catalogued his faults and dissected her marriage. 

 

There is one thing to be careful of when bearing private matters in public. The feelings of anger you have now may change in a few months, and if you were to want your ex back, you might find that it’s too late for reconciliation. You can’t exactly imagine Chris and Ingrid Tarrant getting back together since Ingrid talked about his sexual shortcomings on television, describing him as often going to bed smelling of fish. Or Lady Sarah Graham-Moon cosying up again with Sir Peter after she snipped off the sleeves of 32 of his Saville Row suits as well as raiding his precious wine cellar and leaving bottles from his vintage collection on doorsteps all over their Berkshire village. 

 

If you want to regain a sense of self-esteem once you’ve been betrayed, advises counsellor Bridie Collins, you should stay away from acts of vengefulness. “Although it’s understandable that you might want to hit out at your husband, it would be more helpful to express it than act on it. Giving into rage may cause more problems than it solves, leaving you to feel ashamed and guilty. It can be especially frightening for children who witness acts of revenge.” 

 

Few would take revenge as far as the infamous Lorena Bobbit, who cut off her cheating husband’s penis and flung it from a moving car. There are far subtler ways in which a wrong woman can redeem herself. “I haven’t watched a second of golf since…” as Erin Nordegren has said, has more subtle power than Jerry’s “slimeball” statement about Mick. 

 

In March this year Katherine Bigelow became the first woman to win the best director Oscar. Her Iraq war thriller The Hurt Locker scooped six Academy Awards in all, including Best Picture, while Avatar, directed by her ex-husband James Cameron, won only three minor gongs. For the modern wronged woman, revenge doesn’t get sweeter than that.