A good argument to pay by a fixed fee divorce!
Many a divorce case has happened in the last few years that have involved considerable legal costs. Some examples below. All of whcih give a very convincing argument for a fixed fee divorce
A High Court judge at the beginning of June 2015 condemned couple who spent £1.2 million on legal fees in a divorce battle which ended with neither actually getting what they wanted. The judge said it was “tragic” that so much had been wasted on legal charges when there were just £4 million of remaining liquid assets in the marriage where there had been £6 million in total.
A Russian beauty queen’s marriage to a US lawyer ended after a nine-year relationship during which they had two young children.
The wife said that she needed a £2.6 million lump sum and £500,000 a year to maintain her standard of living with the children in the Kensington area of London. The husband had offered £2.2 million and £230,000 a year and suggested she lived in a cheaper home in Battersea.
The judge said that the husband should pay his wife a £1.2 million in a lump sum and £320,000 per annum and annual payments of £25,000 for each child. He said that the husband should keep a £2 million three-bedroom New York flat next to Central Park even though he now lives in Miami.
Before delivering his judgment, the judge told the court: “This is a case which should have been very easy to settle. There were more than enough assets to provide adequately for both of them. “That would have avoided courtroom confrontation and publicity but despite repeated opportunities to settle the parties have not been able to agree on a negotiated outcome.
“Instead they have spent over £1 million in legal costs which would have been even higher if the husband, a resident in the US, was not exempt from VAT. That £1 million could have been better deployed in meeting their respective needs and aspirations.”
The judge said he was obviously not privy to the details of their out-of-court negotiations and added: “How tragic that they could not identify fair mutual grounds.”