Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Horses for divorces

UK BBC news:
A divorcee has been awarded £50,000 a year maintenance - to keep her horses in the manner to which they have become accustomed. ...

As most divorce cases settle long before a judge gets to give his or her final word, the case law has been silent as to how the courts will treat the costs of maintaining horses and other pets upon divorce.

Typically, if a couple separates and one party wishes to keep the family pony, detailed schedules as to the income needs of the parties are drafted. They set out not only the cost of council tax and the annual food budget, but also the costs of keeping the animals, which in some cases could include the market rate of a good groom.

The obligation of one party to meet these costs comes broadly within the statutory framework as to the standard of living enjoyed by the parties before the breakdown of the marriage. There are no specific provisions with the statute relating to horses or any other animal.

Recently the issue of ongoing maintenance to support a keen horsewoman's lifestyle and her horses was addressed directly in a divorce battle.
This article sounds like a parody, but it is not. The courts have no business getting involved in such issues.


Unknown said...

O-M-G!!! What IS this world coming to!

Anonymous said...

As is typical of blogs in general and this blog in particular, you twist every scenario to fit your conception of family law systems gone mad worldwide.

If an amount sufficient to support the avid horsewoman was appropiate. The award of an amount specific and sufficient to support her horses is a protective measure for the husband. By making the award specific to the maintianance of the horses. It allows the husband discontinue that amount should the woman cease to keep horses. If the court were simply to make an order in gross of s sum sufficient to support the wife in the style of the marriage, the husband would have to continue to pay even if the wife were to give up the horses. Support awards are frequently tied to specific expenditures. For instance, education expenses or medical expenses for treatable maladies. That way when the expense ends the parties do not need to return to court.

You want to think of this award in terms of horse support to bolster your world view of a system gone mad. I wonder if the article would have even made your blog if the woman had been the payor.

George said...

I am against court-order horse support, no matter who is paying. If people want pets, then they should spend their own money.