Post: #1

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...first.html

Quote:Hospital consultant becomes first man in Britain to be ordered to pay EVERY penny of his £550,000 assets to his ex-wife in extraordinary divorce case
Essam Aly, 54, 'washed his hands' of family after leaving wife Enas, 46
He moved to Bahrain and has not paid child maintenance since 2012
Family judge ordered money to go to wife for benefit of their children
Court of Appeal judges have now upheld payout against anaesthetist

A hospital consultant has become the first man to be ordered to pay all of his £550,000 assets to his ex-wife, following an extraordinary divorce ruling.
Anaesthetist Dr Essam Aly, 54, ‘washed his hands’ of his family after leaving wife Enas, 46, in 2011 and moving to Bahrain - and has not paid a penny in maintenance or child support since 2012.
Out of the reach of the British authorities and courts, it was feared the ‘serial defaulter’ from Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, would never again pay to support her or their two children.


So to ensure that the children and the wife would be secure, a family court judge ordered that their entire £550,000 fortune should go to her. Court of Appeal judges have now upheld the payout.
The court heard the husband worked at Queen’s Hospital in Burton, while the wife was a GP in Derby. The couple married in 2002 and had a son and a daughter, before separating in 2011.
Dr Aly moved to Bahrain the following year, and has since started a relationship with another woman, undergone an Islamic marriage ceremony and had another child.

At Birmingham Family Court last year, the wife complained that she had received nothing from him since he left Britain.
Her case was that he had effectively ‘abdicated responsibility’ for her and his children, appeal judge Lord Justice McFarlane said.
‘Looking to the future, there was no expectation that she could look to him for any future payment of maintenance and it was therefore necessary for her to achieve an award representing effectively most of the capital assets,’ he said.
The wife is looking after the children and the father has washed his hands of them
Lord Justice McCombe
She secured an injunction freezing his assets, resulting in the discovery of additional bank accounts, said the judge.
Giving judgment last July, Judge Mark Rogers awarded her the proceeds of sale of their £250,000 home in Burton, plus another £310,000 held in the bank.
On appeal, Dr Aly’s barrister Louise McCabe said there was ‘substantive unfairness’ in handing the wife what was actually ‘100 per cent’ of the couple’s assets.
‘The court has an obligation to consider the husband’s needs and the judgment is absolutely silent on that,’ she said.
Dr Aly’s hope is that he can get permission to bring his new family to the UK and that he will be able to get a job here, she said.
He has applied for jobs and is still a due-paying member of the General Medical Council, Medical Defence Union and British Medical Association, she added.
The judge had effectively added up future maintenance payments and awarded them all in one go, something he was not allowed to do, she said.
Appeal judge: Lord Justice McFarlane (pictured) said the wife's case was that Dr Aly had effectively ‘abdicated responsibility’ for her and his children
+3
Appeal judge: Lord Justice McFarlane (pictured) said the wife's case was that Dr Aly had effectively ‘abdicated responsibility’ for her and his children
It was also wrong to say he had offered nothing - since there was evidence he was willing to pay £40-a-week support for each child.
However, Lady Justice Macur said Dr Aly had shown himself to be ‘unwilling’ to provide any support to his former family.
And Lord Justice McCombe, who heard the appeal with Lady Justice Macur and Lord Justice McFarlane, questioned what else a judge could do in such a case.

‘What was the judge supposed to do, faced with a serial defaulter, to make proper provision for this family?’ he said. ‘The wife is looking after the children and the father has washed his hands of them.’
Upholding the award, Lord Justice McFarlane said: ‘The judge had in front of him a case where he was entitled to hold there was no realistic expectation of getting any further maintenance out of the husband’.
‘He was beyond the reach of enforcement of courts in this country. He hadn’t been paying for the previous two years.
‘The judge was required, in determining the outcome of the financial provision proceedings, to give first consideration to the welfare of the two children.

‘On the case before the judge, the wife was to have the sole responsibility and financial burden for bringing these children up.
‘The judge, therefore, concluded that she should have the lion’s share, if not all, of the assets, as she needed them to house herself in appropriate accommodation and make provision for these children.
‘Thus it was that he awarded her a far more substantial lump sum than would otherwise have been the case if equality was the only yardstick.’
After the case, Andrew Newbury, head of family law at Slater and Gordon, said: ‘One of the approaches the family court must take is to achieve fairness to both parties and in many cases that involves dividing the assets equally.

It secured the funds for the weaker party - a lump sum in the hand is worth years of uncertain maintenance in the bush
Ayesha Vardag, divorce lawyer
‘In the present case the only way to achieve fairness is to award the wife all of the assets to ensure her needs and the children’s are met. By contrast the husband will have the unfettered use of his income and earning potential.’
And top divorce lawyer Ayesha Vardag said: ‘This was a very straightforward decision to make sure this wife and children got something out of a non-paying husband.

‘It secured the funds for the weaker party - a lump sum in the hand is worth years of uncertain maintenance in the bush.
‘The message to spouses thinking about wriggling out of their payments is: if you look like a bad risk for maintenance, it may cost you more in capital up front.’

Now the precedent is set we will start to see more cases like this in the near future.

Post: #2

From a commenter at VD:

Quote:The courts in the UK ignore prenuptial agreements. See the post about John Clese.

Is this true? Why would any man live there, if he planned on marrying?

Post: #3

Divorce is the best thing that ever happened to me.

Post: #4

So much for Islam stopping the matriarchy...

Post: #5

(07-13-2015 12:48 PM)JordanH Wrote:  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...first.html

Quote:Hospital consultant becomes first man in Britain to be ordered to pay EVERY penny of his £550,000 assets to his ex-wife in extraordinary divorce case
Essam Aly, 54, 'washed his hands' of family after leaving wife Enas, 46
He moved to Bahrain and has not paid child maintenance since 2012
Family judge ordered money to go to wife for benefit of their children
Court of Appeal judges have now upheld payout against anaesthetist

A hospital consultant has become the first man to be ordered to pay all of his £550,000 assets to his ex-wife, following an extraordinary divorce ruling.
Anaesthetist Dr Essam Aly, 54, ‘washed his hands’ of his family after leaving wife Enas, 46, in 2011 and moving to Bahrain - and has not paid a penny in maintenance or child support since 2012.
Out of the reach of the British authorities and courts, it was feared the ‘serial defaulter’ from Burton-on-Trent, Staffordshire, would never again pay to support her or their two children.


So to ensure that the children and the wife would be secure, a family court judge ordered that their entire £550,000 fortune should go to her. Court of Appeal judges have now upheld the payout.
The court heard the husband worked at Queen’s Hospital in Burton, while the wife was a GP in Derby. The couple married in 2002 and had a son and a daughter, before separating in 2011.
Dr Aly moved to Bahrain the following year, and has since started a relationship with another woman, undergone an Islamic marriage ceremony and had another child.

At Birmingham Family Court last year, the wife complained that she had received nothing from him since he left Britain.
Her case was that he had effectively ‘abdicated responsibility’ for her and his children, appeal judge Lord Justice McFarlane said.
‘Looking to the future, there was no expectation that she could look to him for any future payment of maintenance and it was therefore necessary for her to achieve an award representing effectively most of the capital assets,’ he said.
The wife is looking after the children and the father has washed his hands of them
Lord Justice McCombe
She secured an injunction freezing his assets, resulting in the discovery of additional bank accounts, said the judge.
Giving judgment last July, Judge Mark Rogers awarded her the proceeds of sale of their £250,000 home in Burton, plus another £310,000 held in the bank.
On appeal, Dr Aly’s barrister Louise McCabe said there was ‘substantive unfairness’ in handing the wife what was actually ‘100 per cent’ of the couple’s assets.
‘The court has an obligation to consider the husband’s needs and the judgment is absolutely silent on that,’ she said.
Dr Aly’s hope is that he can get permission to bring his new family to the UK and that he will be able to get a job here, she said.
He has applied for jobs and is still a due-paying member of the General Medical Council, Medical Defence Union and British Medical Association, she added.
The judge had effectively added up future maintenance payments and awarded them all in one go, something he was not allowed to do, she said.
Appeal judge: Lord Justice McFarlane (pictured) said the wife's case was that Dr Aly had effectively ‘abdicated responsibility’ for her and his children
+3
Appeal judge: Lord Justice McFarlane (pictured) said the wife's case was that Dr Aly had effectively ‘abdicated responsibility’ for her and his children
It was also wrong to say he had offered nothing - since there was evidence he was willing to pay £40-a-week support for each child.
However, Lady Justice Macur said Dr Aly had shown himself to be ‘unwilling’ to provide any support to his former family.
And Lord Justice McCombe, who heard the appeal with Lady Justice Macur and Lord Justice McFarlane, questioned what else a judge could do in such a case.

‘What was the judge supposed to do, faced with a serial defaulter, to make proper provision for this family?’ he said. ‘The wife is looking after the children and the father has washed his hands of them.’
Upholding the award, Lord Justice McFarlane said: ‘The judge had in front of him a case where he was entitled to hold there was no realistic expectation of getting any further maintenance out of the husband’.
‘He was beyond the reach of enforcement of courts in this country. He hadn’t been paying for the previous two years.
‘The judge was required, in determining the outcome of the financial provision proceedings, to give first consideration to the welfare of the two children.

‘On the case before the judge, the wife was to have the sole responsibility and financial burden for bringing these children up.
‘The judge, therefore, concluded that she should have the lion’s share, if not all, of the assets, as she needed them to house herself in appropriate accommodation and make provision for these children.
‘Thus it was that he awarded her a far more substantial lump sum than would otherwise have been the case if equality was the only yardstick.’
After the case, Andrew Newbury, head of family law at Slater and Gordon, said: ‘One of the approaches the family court must take is to achieve fairness to both parties and in many cases that involves dividing the assets equally.

It secured the funds for the weaker party - a lump sum in the hand is worth years of uncertain maintenance in the bush
Ayesha Vardag, divorce lawyer
‘In the present case the only way to achieve fairness is to award the wife all of the assets to ensure her needs and the children’s are met. By contrast the husband will have the unfettered use of his income and earning potential.’
And top divorce lawyer Ayesha Vardag said: ‘This was a very straightforward decision to make sure this wife and children got something out of a non-paying husband.

‘It secured the funds for the weaker party - a lump sum in the hand is worth years of uncertain maintenance in the bush.
‘The message to spouses thinking about wriggling out of their payments is: if you look like a bad risk for maintenance, it may cost you more in capital up front.’

Now the precedent is set we will start to see more cases like this in the near future.

Here are some items not mentioned in the case that I'd be curious about...
1. is he free from future child support and spousal maintenance?
2. whats the nature of the other hidden assets that were discovered?

Post: #6

550 000 pounds is way way more than the combined child support for two children for 18 years!

Post: #7

(07-13-2015 02:58 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  550 000 pounds is way way more than the combined child support for two children for 18 years!

The courts literally don't care in the Anglosphere.

I have two friends who owe over $200,000 after tax per year due to having pre-divorce high-paying jobs and thus will basically have to pay this for the next 10-15 years even if they lose their jobs (!). One of them has a wife who also had a six-figure job but decided she wanted to be a stay at home mom for their one child.

And if these men lose their job it's tough titties for them basically as it takes awhile to go through any re-adjustment period and even then it often doesn't happen and/or it can get held up in courts for years.

Post: #8

They could try dumping all their assets into bitcoin, which is the new weapon in divorce cases these days.

Post: #9

Did you all read the entire article? The guy abandoned his kids and went to a place that was out of the reach of the British courts. He's an anesthesiologist which is one of the higher paying medical specialties due to the nature of the job. In the US, he'd earn between $300K and $450K/year and maybe more. So the amount she's getting in one lump isn't all that much in the big picture.

I'm all for crying divorce rape when it's justified, but from the info available, he brought it on himself.

Post: #10

I see this guy as no different than a carousel rider who marries beta bux, just to run off with Chad Thundercock. This ruling fits in with my belief of you leave with nothing in a no fault divorce/estrangement. You can leave, but only with the clothes on your back. The cash and prizes go to the person who wins the proverbial game of chicken.

Post: #11

(07-13-2015 04:16 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  I see this guy as no different than a carousel rider who marries beta bux, just to run off with Chad Thundercock. This ruling fits in with my belief of you leave with nothing in a no fault divorce/estrangement. You can leave, but only with the clothes on your back. The cash and prizes go to the person who wins the proverbial game of chicken.

Are you sure about that? Maybe if you're the one going through a divorce your opinion will be wildly different, no matter what the circumstances.

Post: #12

(07-13-2015 05:06 PM)alphaspiraton Wrote:  

(07-13-2015 04:16 PM)teh_skeeze Wrote:  I see this guy as no different than a carousel rider who marries beta bux, just to run off with Chad Thundercock. This ruling fits in with my belief of you leave with nothing in a no fault divorce/estrangement. You can leave, but only with the clothes on your back. The cash and prizes go to the person who wins the proverbial game of chicken.

Are you sure about that? Maybe if you're the one going through a divorce your opinion will be wildly different, no matter what the circumstances.

You underestimate my patience and tolerance for punishment. I have full faith that she would give cause for divorce if she wanted to make my life miserable. Not that I would get married.

Post: #13

I'd say his fleeing the country to avoid paying is the reason he got hammered so hard.

Obviously I'm not for divorce rape, but the court penalized him for avoiding the child support he was required to pay by court decree.

Post: #14

So what is the effective ruling? He obviously loses the properties he still had in the UK, but if his funds are all in Bahrain banks, there's not much they can do. Is this more of a symbolic gesture or one that's actually threatening?

Post: #15

It means nothing. UK banks do not have the clout the US authorities have.

Post: #16

His ex-wife does look like this:



She looks a bit slutty and who knows whether the children are his genetically.

In any case - the guy was utterly blindsided by the matter. He had 310.000 £ in his bank accounts in the UK thinking, that his ex-wife would not find out about it. He should have sold the house which was in his name ASAP and wired the entire amount to Bahrain the minute his ex-wife demanded a divorce. If he had done that, then he would have 550.000 £ in Bahrain or Dubai with no way for the UK authorities to get their hands on the cash.

Then of course he shouldn't have been such a penny pincher offering 50£ per child per week for his children.

But it is telling that the judges just calculated his future income for 20+ years despite him not having a job and any significant income right now. Essentially it's an unemployed MD who is ordered to pay out of his potential future earnings.

As others have pointed out - if you have a high-paying job and then lose it, then it takes a lot of time for the courts to lower that alimony/child support amount. Courts rather throw men in prison than adjust the payments.

It's all part of anti-family policies that will hopefully bite women in the ass soon as many men are getting wiser and the younger generation simply has no sufficient funds for Beta Bucks.

Post: #17

Who is the biggest, toughest guy on the forum?

If I ever decide to get married again, I would like to hire him to come over and bully me into reading this story out loud -- repeatedly -- until I fully absorbed its subject matter. Then he could threaten me until I repeated "I will not get married" over and over until it sunk it.

Seriously, while the man in this story was a rat for abandoning his family (assuming the wife's behavior didn't push him out), this punishment is insane. And to make it worse, think of what happens when women abandon their families: Counseling, sympathy, they get awarded custody when they come back, etc.

Post: #18

^ Exactly, the point is that had she done the same, she wouldn't have been punished anywhere near as severely, if at all. Feminists are female supremacists.

Post: #19

(07-14-2015 05:53 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  Who is the biggest, toughest guy on the forum?

If I ever decide to get married again, I would like to hire him to come over and bully me into reading this story out loud -- repeatedly -- until I fully absorbed its subject matter. Then he could threaten me until I repeated "I will not get married" over and over until it sunk it.

Seriously, while the man in this story was a rat for abandoning his family (assuming the wife's behavior didn't push him out), this punishment is insane. And to make it worse, think of what happens when women abandon their families: Counseling, sympathy, they get awarded custody when they come back, etc.

Little Dark may lurk here still, who knows?

Post: #20

It sounds like he abandoned his family, a severe violation of the marriage contract he signed. Screw him. If he had been banging his secretary, a ruling like this would have been unwarranted, but he did far worse.

Now if only women were held to the same standard...

Post: #21

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...rtune.html

Another story where a man loses entire fortune in a divorce court.

Quote:Businesswoman who dumped her career to become 'conventional housewife' has last laugh on her high flying ex when divorce judge awards her ALL their £500,000 fortune
Peter and Jane Morris were married for 25 years and bought a £1.2m house
The couple split three years ago but continued to spend money lavishly
Mr Morris took six holidays within nine months and his ex-wife spent £5,000 on her own birthday party
Mrs Morris was awarded all of their wealth to support their three children
A divorce court heard that the couple had a 'high standard of living', but their extravagance had reduced their fortune from several millions of pounds.
They enjoyed a quarter of a century of married bliss in their four-bedroom detached house in Princes Risborough, Buckinghamshire, while their two younger children boarded at a £30,000-a-year school.


Couple fed up with 'neighbour from hell' discover he is an...

Ex-lapdancer mother-of-eight who claims £20,000 a year in...

Mrs Morris, who was a 'competent and effective operator' during her pre-marriage career, 'stayed at home to look after the home and care for the children by agreement with her husband', judge Glen Brasse said at a hearing last year.
Mr Morris, the managing director of a software company who earned up to £240,000 a year, was said to have 'considerable business acumen'.
The judge added: 'The wife and family have relied on him considerably in the past for his expertise in producing a good standard of living for them.'
Home: The couple lived in this £1.2million house in Princes Risborough in the Chilterns

Home: The couple lived in this £1.2million house in Princes Risborough in the Chilterns
The couple enjoyed 'expensive holidays' and showed 'exceptional generosity' in lavishing gifts of cars, holidays, horses and expensive birthday parties on themselves and their three children.
When their marriage fell apart and they split in 2013, their 'extravagant' spending continued unabated.
The husband's lifestyle in particular 'continued as a very affluent affair', with Mr Morris taking on six holidays in the space of nine months, while 'huge and pressing debts' mounted up.
Judge Brasse ruled that, due to their profligacy, they only had enough money left to meet the core housing and day-to-day needs of Mrs Morris and the children.
Ruling: Judge Glen Brasse awarded Mrs Morris almost all of the couple's £560,000 fortune

Ruling: Judge Glen Brasse awarded Mrs Morris almost all of the couple's £560,000 fortune
He handed almost half a million pounds to Mrs Morris, giving the husband just £66,000.
Mr Morris was also ordered to fork out £77,000 for unpaid maintenance and other debts - effectively leaving him with none of the money that the couple formerly shared.
Mr Morris hit out at his ex-wife, pointing out that she spent £5,000 on a 50th birthday party for herself, and argued that she should have been able to earn more in the wake of the divorce.
But Mrs Morris was ruled to be 'a sensible woman' who was 'probably in need of emotional and psychological comfort' during her own spending sprees.
Judge Brasse at the Central London Family Court admitted he had made a 'substantial departure from authority' in handing 90 per cent of the family assets to a stay-at-home wife.
But he said Mrs Morris 'needs adequate maintenance' because sacrificing her career had left her with a 'low earning capacity... in her middle fifties with rusty skills.'
He concluded that the couple would have to live a more modest lifestyle in future, saying: 'It is self-evident that not all the needs of the parties could possibly be met in full, or even substantially, from the available resources so the parties' expectations have to be scaled down.
'Some of their needs will have to be prioritised over others. The priority must be given in my judgement to the housing of the wife and children.'
Mr Morris refused to pay the maintenance funds, leading to Judge Judith Hughes imposing a suspended prison sentence on him at a later hearing.
'The husband has had the money to pay the maintenance but has failed to prioritise it and has spent sums instead on himself and his enjoyment,' she said.
Mr Morris has now taken his case to the Court of Appeal in a bid to overturn both the suspended sentence and Judge Brasse's initial division of the family's wealth.
An appeal hearing today was postponed when Mr Morris attempted to represent himself and Lady Justice Black ruled that he should be given a legal aid-funded barrister because of the severity of the case.
The case will return to the Court of Appeal at a later date

So women can take a step forward but not a step back. I knew more cases like this were to come and will continue for some time. No mention of the father abandoning his children either.

Post: #22

Maybe it's just the paranoid conspiracy theorist in me, but I'm amazed at the stupidity of all these wealthy guys who get married and apparently keep all of their wealth "in the system". No bitcoin, no buried precious metals, no hidden cash, nothing. All or virtually all of their wealth is in bank accounts, liquid assets, etc.

If you really have to get married, at least have a backup plan.

Post: #23

(07-13-2015 04:09 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Did you all read the entire article? The guy abandoned his kids and went to a place that was out of the reach of the British courts. He's an anesthesiologist which is one of the higher paying medical specialties due to the nature of the job. In the US, he'd earn between $300K and $450K/year and maybe more. So the amount she's getting in one lump isn't all that much in the big picture.

I'm all for crying divorce rape when it's justified, but from the info available, he brought it on himself.

What about the info on why he washed his hands of it all in the first place?

Post: #24

(07-13-2015 05:25 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  I'd say his fleeing the country to avoid paying is the reason he got hammered so hard.

Obviously I'm not for divorce rape, but the court penalized him for avoiding the child support he was required to pay by court decree.

Sure, but a more just solution would be putting all that money in a trust/escrow that distributes the necessary payments. By giving the Mother a huge windfall like that she will surely squander it all on her clothes, shoes, booze, and plastic surgery.

And if for some reason the required support/alimony payments should be decreased in the future he will be out of luck as the money has already been taken.

I don't see the fairness in that.

Post: #25

Hardly newsworthy.

I lost 100% of my assets in the divorce as well, including superannuation.

I didn't flee the country, or abandon my children either, the court granted her permission to move them interstate.

Prenups get overturned regular in Australian family court, again nothing newsworthy there.

This is why 21 Australian fathers commit suicide each week in Australia, they have all hope, rights and materials extinguished.

21 fathers a week Website