Husband spent £50,000 gameshow winnings in just four months.

[Falconero]

[h=1]So he wouldn't have to share it with his estranged wife[/h]

• Scott Brown cleared £15,000 debts, spent £4,000 on a second-hand Jaguar and put £2,000 aside to pay for divorce legal fees
• Wife Rachel took him to court as soon as the episode of Deal Or No Deal was shown on TV
• Mr Brown had been sleeping on the floor at his parents' house after the couple split

READ ON:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...just-months-wouldnt-share-estranged-wife.html​

 

[BEER]

She cheated on him.

Case closed.

 

[TINY]

I new these shows are pre-taped but 4 months is a hell of a long time.

 

[blackram]

I like his style, he paid off not only his own credit card debts but his ex-wife's as well, even though she didn't know it. He bought stuff for his two kids. When I read the headline, I was initially thinking that I was going to read about some dufus who couldn't manage his money and who spent it stupidly. But I was delighted to hear that he did this in deliberate fashion for a specific purpose -- to screw his ex-wife! :-Cool/"

 

[blackram]

I new these shows are pre-taped but 4 months is a hell of a long time.

Yeah, I thought the same thing, but I guess in this case it helped him out, giving him enough time to get this stuff spent.

I'm thinking what would I spend it on if I had to get rid of $100,000 in 4 months. I would've probably also bought a car like him, but a £4000 Jaguar seems a bit pathetic, wouldn't it have been better to go with a slightly newer Jag, at least double that price?

 

[Jesus Quintana]

At double the price she may have tried to get part of it. Very smart.

I hate all the people who say that he could have at least put some of it aside for the kids.
He did even better, as he's soon going to have a trade that at least over the next several years can let him pay WAY MORE to the kid's benefit.
So much short term thinking.

 

[Tuk2214]

At double the price she may have tried to get part of it. Very smart.

I hate all the people who say that he could have at least put some of it aside for the kids.
He did even better, as he's soon going to have a trade that at least over the next several years can let him pay WAY MORE to the kid's benefit.
So much short term thinking.

It was only a one time shot payment.

 

[HOF]

She's a bitch!

 

[Bill The Pirate]

It was only a one time shot payment.

kind of like his honeymoon I guess

 

[Butch]

Anyone here with some law knowledge have any idea if she has a case?.

 

[blackram]

Anyone here with some law knowledge have any idea if she has a case?.

Well, it is UK law, so I doubt anyone has direct law knowledge about it. However, this guy thought she had a case, so he went around as fast as possible trying to get rid of the money.

 

[Jesus Quintana]

IF UK law is anything like Canadian Law then what he did do is get himself a lot of goodwill with the court.
He paid off mutual debts (good), invested in self improvement and spent a small amount for himself.
All very reasonable.

Her net - Zero.

 

[blackram]

IF UK law is anything like Canadian Law then what he did do is get himself a lot of goodwill with the court.
He paid off mutual debts (good), invested in self improvement and spent a small amount for himself.
All very reasonable.

Her net - Zero.

But does that matter to the law? Won't he have to split the new Jaguar with her somewhat?

 

[peace]

Well, it is UK law, so I doubt anyone has direct law knowledge about it. However, this guy thought she had a case, so he went around as fast as possible trying to get rid of the money.

Ask HOneybee. :biggrin2:

 

[Swagger]

Ask HOneybee. :biggrin2:

Or Annabelle.

 

[Jesus Quintana]

But does that matter to the law? Won't he have to split the new Jaguar with her somewhat?

Depends on what assets she has.
Seems to me from what I read that he has something between Jack and Shit. If she has ANY assets then the division is SUPPOSED to go the other way, meaning if her assets amount to more than the value of the car then she gives back.
He seems like he smartened up though so I'm sure he figured it out with the help of his lawyer.

 

[tboy]

Depends on what assets she has.
Seems to me from what I read that he has something between Jack and Shit. If she has ANY assets then the division is SUPPOSED to go the other way, meaning if her assets amount to more than the value of the car then she gives back.
He seems like he smartened up though so I'm sure he figured it out with the help of his lawyer.

It's supposed to work that way but in all my years I have yet to hear of a single case where the woman pays the man alimony, or has to "pay him off" because she has more assets than he does.

If he was in Canada, the winnings would be half hers since their divorce wasn't finalized when he won. Whether he spent the money wisely or not, the courts wouldn't care, they'd still award her half and if he didn't have it, he'd have to pay it eventually. Like if he got a job as an electrician they'd garnish his wages until it was paid.......

I seem to recall something like this happening in Canada where a guy won 649 or something and gave or spent it all.....

 

[LickingGravity]

The difference between the Canadian case is that in this British one he won the money after they seperated. One would think that should make a difference.

 

[Jesus Quintana]

It's supposed to work that way but in all my years I have yet to hear of a single case where the woman pays the man alimony, or has to "pay him off" because she has more assets than he does.

If he was in Canada, the winnings would be half hers since their divorce wasn't finalized when he won. Whether he spent the money wisely or not, the courts wouldn't care, they'd still award her half and if he didn't have it, he'd have to pay it eventually. Like if he got a job as an electrician they'd garnish his wages until it was paid.......

I seem to recall something like this happening in Canada where a guy won 649 or something and gave or spent it all.....

But T remember that he paid off all outstanding debt. EVEN HER CREDIT CARD DEBT. That counts against the supposed windfall.
By paying off the mutual debt he tied the money up into something which she has derived benefit and therefore she has already gotten a partial pay off of the money he won.
LG - I know that there is a period of time that exists with many types of agreements. You can't for example go to your boss and ask him to hold off on a pay raise because you are going through a divorce, and the day the papers are signed have him pay you retroactively. Usually it's around a year from what I understand but I could be wrong on that.