Woman Leaves Former Husband for Another Man Ten Years Ago and Then Returns to Sue Him For Millions in Lottery Wins — And Succeeds

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

Jonathan Turley

11 thoughts on “Woman Leaves Former Husband for Another Man Ten Years Ago and Then Returns to Sue Him For Millions in Lottery Wins — And Succeeds”

  1. Pingback: amiee wedin
  2. It’s very hard for me to feel sorry for this obscenely wealthy man. He is divorced but his former wife still has a claim in English law and she has been rewarded well for biding her time until his financial situation improved. Had he never won she probably would not have gone to the trouble, for obvious reasons.

    All the rest, as far as I’m aware, is hearsay.

    Should the loophole be closed? Perhaps, but I would want to see a far better example of an unjust outcome than a multiple millionnaire being sued by the mother of his daughter.

  3. The visual I get from this is when the smaller guy in Goldfinger held the larger guy( jaws) with a pair of pliers,where he squeezed and twisted jaws in the groin area.

  4. Greed … avarice is always poor … I hope he’s closed the loophole ’cause I guarantee you, she’ll be back.

  5. Wow! That is a real kick in the solar plexus for this ex-husband! If the clean break language was not in their divorce, can he sue for malpractice if he used an attorney?

  6. I think that this was an out of court settlement…Unless the Judge forced the hands of the party’s why is he/she in a doubting position….it appears that the man had planned to give her two million and did just that….

    Usually, most divorces end all ties and claims for winnings after a divorce….were they divorced or still married? If still married how did he marry his partner?

    Why did not he sue his ex for alienation of affections, abandonment or some other intentional tort?

Comments are closed.