Husband spends


Recommended Posts

After Scott Brown held his nerve to win ?50,000 on Deal Or No Deal, he was determined that his estranged wife should not get a penny.

But with only four months before the TV gameshow was screened and she found out about his windfall, the father-of-two knew he had to spend it fast.

The 33-year-old sign manufacturer and fitter said he used ?15,000 to clear all the debts he and his wife Rachel, 29, had from credit card bills, loans and bank overdrafts.

After setting aside almost ?2,000 to cover legal fees for his divorce, he bought clothing, toys and household items for their two young children.

Mr Brown also used some cash to ?live off?, having being signed off from work because of ?depression?.

But he admits he spent most of the rest on ?having a good time?, including an iPad, a holiday in Mexico and the outlay of ?4,000 on a second-hand X-type Jaguar estate car.

The final part of his winnings went days before his own August 21 deadline to pay for an electrician?s course, so he could start a new career.

As it turned out, Mr Brown was right to suspect that his wife, who he says asked him for a divorce on Christmas Day last year when he allegedly found she had been having an affair with a truck driver she met over the internet, would want to cash in on his lucky break.

As soon as the Channel 4 programme was broadcast, she went to court in a belated bid to ensure she received a share.

The case went before a district judge at Doncaster County Court last Thursday, when Mr Brown was ordered to detail in writing how the money was spent; an injunction imposed days earlier ordering him not to spend his winnings ? if any remained ? was kept in place; and the case was adjourned.

More

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good man :rofl: . I personally think that if you've been caught cheating when married you should not receive anything from your partner. Marriage is a contract you enter into, violate the terms of this contract and you should get nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marriage is a contract you enter into, violate the terms of this contract and you should get nothing.

While such a stance sounds delightfully quaint when posted on a forum it bears little relation to how the real world works. Perhaps he had been abusive towards her; perhaps he spent all their savings on a heroin addiction; perhaps she tried to get them to go to marriage counselling and he refused - we simply don't know.

We don't need glib comments that propose arbitrary binary solutions to non-linear problems in order to satisfy one's bravado in the company of strangers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO, anything he earned after they separated and she asked for a divorce is entirely his and she shouldn't be entitled to any of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While such a stance sounds delightfully quaint when posted on a forum it bears little relation to how the real world works. Perhaps he had been abusive towards her; perhaps he spent all their savings on a heroin addiction; perhaps she tried to get them to go to marriage counselling and he refused - we simply don't know.

We don't need glib comments that propose arbitrary binary solutions to non-linear problems in order to satisfy one's bravado in the company of strangers.

did you read the rest of the article in the link? she was obviously a bitch
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The case went before a district judge at Doncaster County Court last Thursday, when Mr Brown was ordered to detail in writing how the money was spent; an injunction imposed days earlier ordering him not to spend his winnings ? if any remained ? was kept in place; and the case was adjourned.

More

I don't understand. What case? Why should she be entitled to anything? This makes no sense at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you read the rest of the article in the link? she was obviously a bitch

She's a bitch for saying she didn't love him and finding somebody else? And he's the good guy because he deliberately blew all the money so she couldn't get a penny? Perhaps he previously blew all her savings in a casino and she was taking him to court to claim some of his winnings to recoup her loss. Without knowing the full circumstances we can't pass judgement.

On the face of things she appears to be rather unpleasant but given that we only have his side we're certainly missing a lot of information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a bitch for saying she didn't love him and finding somebody else? And he's the good guy because he deliberately blew all the money so she couldn't get a penny? Perhaps he previously blew all her savings in a casino and she was taking him to court to claim some of his winnings to recoup her loss. Without knowing the full circumstances we can't pass judgement.

On the face of things she appears to be rather unpleasant but given that we only have his side we're certainly missing a lot of information.

no. you're not missing anything. Read the damn article

He payed off all their debts and even payed for her lawyer for the divorse. She didn't even deserve that. He got the money after she left him to live in his parents garage and it's only proof of what I've constantly said about the family courts. Family courts are designed only to redistribute wealth from men to women and imprison/punish men if they refuse.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That man deserves another 50k just to pi** off that woman who had the nerve to go out of her way and put on a scene after all that mess.

The guy has all my props.

Glassed Silver:mac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no. you're not missing anything. Read the damn article

He payed off all their debts and even payed for her lawyer for the divorse.

I have read the entire article and your hostility is completely unwarranted. He paid the legal fees for his divorce; it doesn't say he paid for her lawyer.

He got the money after she left him to live in his parents garage and it's only proof of what I've constantly said about the family courts. Family courts are designed only to redistribute wealth from men to women and imprison/punish men if they refuse.

As I said, without knowing the full circumstances we can't make a fair and accurate judgement. That is for the courts to determine. If you honestly believe that courts are out to punish men and redistribute wealth then you're not being reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the entire article and your hostility is completely unwarranted. He paid the legal fees for his divorce; it doesn't say he paid for her lawyer.

As I said, without knowing the full circumstances we can't make a fair and accurate judgement. That is for the courts to determine. If you honestly believe that courts are out to punish men and redistribute wealth then you're not being reasonable.

let's take the worst circumstance. Let's say that he beat her and cheated on her.

Even in that situation. Anything he earns after they seperate.. She should never be entitled to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US, if he had cheated on her, she would be allowed to take every penny he has to his name.

Granted this is different since it's not in the US, but she cheated on him, so she shouldn't get a damn thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the US, if he had cheated on her, she would be allowed to take every penny he has to his name.

Granted this is different since it's not in the US, but she cheated on him, so she shouldn't get a damn thing.

It's worse in the U.K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was fine with it until this part: "including an iPad".

We don't need glib comments that propose arbitrary binary solutions to non-linear problems in order to satisfy one's bravado show one's prick in the company of strangers a bunch of dudes.

FTFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have read the entire article and your hostility is completely unwarranted. He paid the legal fees for his divorce; it doesn't say he paid for her lawyer.

As I said, without knowing the full circumstances we can't make a fair and accurate judgement. That is for the courts to determine. If you honestly believe that courts are out to punish men and redistribute wealth then you're not being reasonable.

I understand the wonderful attributes of being idealistic, but in some cases being idealistic is simply being naive. From what was disclosed in the article, the wife was the one at fault. Since we are not the courts, we have all right to come to our own conclusions with the evidence was provided. Are we all as humans held up to some imaginary "moral" that outlines how and when to judge? Are courts the only ones who are allowed to come to a conclusion in such a case? I ask these questions because our opinion does not affect the outcome of a non-biased judge who will oversee all facts of the case and come to the most reasonable conclusion (I say this last bit with sarcasm, if it is not evident).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the wonderful attributes of being idealistic, but in some cases being idealistic is simply being naive. From what was disclosed in the article, the wife was the one at fault. Since we are not the courts, we have all right to come to our own conclusions with the evidence was provided. Are we all as humans held up to some imaginary "moral" that outlines how and when to judge? Are courts the only ones who are allowed to come to a conclusion in such a case? I ask these questions because our opinion does not affect the outcome of a non-biased judge who will oversee all facts of the case and come to the most reasonable conclusion (I say this last bit with sarcasm, if it is not evident).

DOES NOT EXIST IN ANY UNIVERSE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what was disclosed in the article, the wife was the one at fault. Since we are not the courts, we have all right to come to our own conclusions with the evidence was provided.

That I don't deny, though obviously we have to take into account that we only have his record of the events and it comes from a publication with little in the way of journalistic integrity. And even in that he displayed questionable, even spiteful behaviour. I just think people should be a bit more objective and critical when passing judgement on other people we know little about.

Are courts the only ones who are allowed to come to a conclusion in such a case?

No, though obviously the courts have better information than we do.

My point isn't to claim she is innocent or even that she isn't as bad as people make out; rather that it is unfair to jump to such conclusions, especially when his behaviour was suspect. Situations are rarely black and white and some people have grossly over-simplified the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.