Nigel Page, 44, can tell you about the meaning of adding insult to injury. Ten years ago, Wendy Page, 43, left Nigel for another man. She would have nothing to do with him until he suddenly changed in her eyes: after she saw him on television winning the £56million Euromillions jackpot lottery. She proceeded to call a lawyer and demand £8 million. When Nigel offered to put £2 million in a trust for their daughter, she reportedly balked and demanded the money for herself as well as an increase in child support. She succeeded in an out-of-court settlement. She will receive £2 million from the man she left for another man (who lacks a winning lottery ticket). The reason is a loophole in English divorce law that should be closed.
Nigel celebrated the win by marrying his longtime partner, giving his old house to his cleaning lady, gifts to friends, and making charitable donations. He was reportedly planning to make a generous gift to his former wife when he was contacted by her lawyer. Yes, I like Nigel a lot more than Wendy.
Nigel himself is a former property maintenance worker, and has now moved into a £4million six-bedroom eco-home with 25-seat cinema and an indoor swimming pool.
Wendy Page is a human resources director at an investment firm and lives in a waterside home in the Cotswolds. She was seen celebrating with another man and a bottle of champagne after the lottery win.
I remain confused by the legal threat. The reason appears to be absence of a “legally-binding ‘clean break’ clause” in their divorce — a curious requirement since in the United States (once a divorce becomes final) it generally ends any demands for post-divorce asset acquisitions. When you divorce, your right to make a claim against your husband/wife for money or property will still exist. The English courts only view a divorce as ending the contract of marriage and not necessarily demands on financial assets. Thus, you have to ask a court for a formal release from such future demands in a Clean Break Order or Clean Break Agreement. This case shows, in my view, the flaws in such a system. The presumption should be the inverse. Absent a court order, demands on post-divorce assets should be presumptively barred with the cessation of the marriage.
Source: Daily Mail