Now that's what you call a bitch!!!!

[Gob]

The ex-wife of a $90 million lottery winner has successfully sued him for $3.2 million, despite leaving the marriage a decade ago, according to media reports.

Englishman Nigel Page, 44, bagged the massive Euromillions windfall in February this year.

Shortly after the win was made public Mr Page's ex-wife, Wendy, who left him for another man 10 years ago, launched legal action and reportedly sought up to $12 million.

London's Daily Mail newspaper reported she was awarded a $3.2 million lump sum in an out-of-court settlement.

The 43-year-old human resources director is the mother of Mr Page's 13-year-old daughter, Ella.

She was photographed leaving her home in Gloucestershire, in England's south-west, clutching a bottle of champagne following her victory.

Unnamed family friends told The Sun newspaper that Mr Page was heartbroken when Wendy, whose surname is not known, walked out on their marriage, taking then-three-year-old Ella with her.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/exwife-wins ... 184iq.html

[darkblack]

A rich bitch. Got your passage bought for Gloucestershire yet?

[The Hen]

Apparently she also receives a substantial amount of child support payments from her ex-husband as well.

When he won he offered her just over a million pounds.

She really should have had the grace to accept that payment.

[Jarlaxle]

Seems to me he could have gotten a hell of a hit man for less than $3.2 million...

[SisterMaryFellatio]

FFS women like that need a damn good slapping........Shes a lazy bitch whos to self absorbed and lazy to support herself but i bet when questioned she will say she did it for the child...

Women like that leave a really bad taste in my mouth!

[Lord Jim]

If I had won 90 million, I would gladly have spent 3.2 mil.....

Or twice that if necessary....

In order to pay whatever legal bills were necessary to make sure she didn't receive one nickle....

[Scooter]

And you might have had to pay her anyway, and a lot more than £2 million. Besides which, it's easy to see her as a bitch (which she probably is) but as my grandmother used to say, in her Abruzzese dialect, li guaije di la pignate li sa lu cucchiare (only the spoon knows the troubles of the pot). People are judging her harshly because she is being portrayed as a bitch and he is coming off as Ward Cleaver, but what if it turned out that he beat her, was otherwise abusive or was just a run of the mill bastard while they were married? Would she still be a bitch for wanting a piece of his lottery win, or would it be legitimate payback for what she had to put up with?

[SisterMaryFellatio]

And you might have had to pay her anyway, and a lot more than £2 million. Besides which, it's easy to see her as a bitch (which she probably is) but as my grandmother used to say, in her Abruzzese dialect, li guaije di la pignate li sa lu cucchiare (only the spoon knows the troubles of the pot). People are judging her harshly because she is being portrayed as a bitch and he is coming off as Ward Cleaver, but what if it turned out that he beat her, was otherwise abusive or was just a run of the mill bastard while they were married? Would she still be a bitch for wanting a piece of his lottery win, or would it be legitimate payback for what she had to put up with?

Nope that would make it worse in my eyes Scooter.....IMHO it would mean shes still dependant on him. Whether he beat her or not she should not have taken the money...where the fuck is her pride??

[Scooter]

As Scarlett O'Hara said, "Pride tastes awfully good, especially when the crust is flaky and you put meringue on it." Pride doesn't put food on the table, a roof over one's head, or shoes on a child's feet.

Here's one clue - before the lottery win he was paying £150 per month in child support, which is nothing, meaning he wasn't earning a lot of money, or he was hiding it well. Who knows how much she had to scrimp both during her marriage and after because of that. Dependent on him? She has been subsidizing his obligation to support their daughter since their divorce.

[Gob]

The other reason the payment could have been so low is that he was the aggrieved party inn the divorce, and the man she ran off with could have been a reasonable earner.

It would appear she left him for a wealthier man, she drives a merc and lives in a very expensive property, whereas he was a maintainance man.

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Pride dosn't put food on the table or pay the bills....but pride gets you off your arse to find a job so you can support yaself!

[Scooter]

She must have, because £150 per month wouldn't have gone far to support her child.

[SisterMaryFellatio]

You can feed a child for that in the UK for a month! She was just bitching it wasn't enough for HER and the child

[Scooter]

Children need food, plus a roof over their heads, plus clothes, plus all sorts of other things, and maybe one could do all that for £150 a month in Somalia, but not in the UK.

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Yes but if you double the 150 quid he was paying for the child as she also should be paying toward the child......then 300 a month is enough!

My point is she left him.....why the hell should he support her? Yes he should pay fairly for the upbringing for the child.

I will never believe that a woman has a right for a man to support her unless she it to old or ill to support herself or there has been some sort of abuse in the relationship.


SHE LEFT HIT...IT WAS A CHOICE SHE MADE!

[Scooter]

Yes but if you double the 150 quid he was paying for the child as she also should be paying toward the child......then 300 a month is enough!

You think 300 a month is enough to support a child? Okay....

Yes he should pay fairly for the upbringing for the child.

Which, up until recently, he hadn't been.

I will never believe that a woman has a right for a man to support her unless she it to old or ill to support herself or there has been some sort of abuse in the relationship.

Thank you for conceding the point you attempted to deny earlier.

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Scooter i think you misunderstood me...i have conceded and denied nothing...SHE THE EX WIFE DESERVED NONE OF HER EX HUSBANDS WINNINGS. She needed to get off her arse and support herself. Which is what i have said from the start.The child should have gained by his win.

i think she can support a child for 300 quid a month...mebbe not to the lifestyle you or i are used to but i am sure the child for that amount of money he/she will have a full tummy, clothes and a roof over his/her head! lets not forget the government handouts she would have had a single parent!

Her ex husband originally offered her 1 mill...Greed was the motive here!

If her ex husband hadn't been paying child support where did you get the 150 quid figure from?

[Scooter]

Scooter i think you misunderstood me...i have conceded and denied nothing

Earlier you said:

Whether he beat her or not she should not have taken the money

but later you said:

I will never believe that a woman has a right for a man to support her unless she it to old or ill to support herself or there has been some sort of abuse in the relationship.

So which is it, does a woman who was abused have a right to support or not?

If her ex husband hadn't been paying child support where did you get the 150 quid figure from?

I never said he wasn't paying support. I said £150 per month is peanuts, which it is. It doesn't come close to half the actual cost of raising a child.

[alice]

FFS women like that need a damn good slapping........Shes a lazy bitch whos to self absorbed and lazy to support herself but i bet when questioned she will say she did it for the child...

Women like that leave a really bad taste in my mouth!

Women like what? Based on your statements here I would say I'm obviously I am one of the women who leave a bad taste in your mouth. The damn good slapping? Don't worry, I got plenty of those.

Scooter i think you misunderstood me...i have conceded and denied nothing...SHE THE EX WIFE DESERVED NONE OF HER EX HUSBANDS WINNINGS. She needed to get off her arse and support herself. Which is what i have said from the start.The child should have gained by his win.

i think she can support a child for 300 quid a month...mebbe not to the lifestyle you or i are used to but i am sure the child for that amount of money he/she will have a full tummy, clothes and a roof over his/her head! lets not forget the government handouts she would have had a single parent!

Her ex husband originally offered her 1 mill...Greed was the motive here!

If her ex husband hadn't been paying child support where did you get the 150 quid figure from?

She actually was off her arse and supporting herself for 10 years before he won the money.

I don't see anything that indicates she was lazy and self-absorbed during that ten years. Unless leaving her husband because of another man automatically qualifies her as somehow lazy and self-absorbed without knowing any of the rest of the situation?

I have a feeling there is more to this story than the small amount of detail in the article.

Pride dosn't put food on the table or pay the bills....but pride gets you off your arse to find a job so you can support yaself!

No, that's not pride, that's necessity.
She was supporting herself and the child for ten years before he won this money. He was paying whatever child support he was meant to be paying. That is not supporting her, it's assisting in the support of the child. There's a big difference. The amount he paid would have been proportional to his earnings during that ten years and may or may not have been enough to have been of huge assistance in paying the bills, putting the food on the table, and all the other costs in raising a child. It's extremely unlikely that his child support was fully covering all the costs toward the upbringing of the child, and in general it's quite unlikely that his child support would have been paying even half the costs.
So he wasn't supporting her - she was supporting herself. And he was contributing to the costs of raising their child - and so was she.

Yes but if you double the 150 quid he was paying for the child as she also should be paying toward the child......then 300 a month is enough!

My point is she left him.....why the hell should he support her? Yes he should pay fairly for the upbringing for the child.

I will never believe that a woman has a right for a man to support her unless she it to old or ill to support herself or there has been some sort of abuse in the relationship.


SHE LEFT HIT...IT WAS A CHOICE SHE MADE!

Well slap me about and rinse your mouth after having anything to do with me. I'm obviously one of the people you reserve your contempt for. If I had the opportunity to get a large sum of money from some lottery win of my ex-husband's, I certainly would. And it's been well over ten years since I left him.
I had to put aside all my ambitions, my career and more while I assisted my ex-husband to grow and develop his future and his career. This included, prior to children, giving up jobs that I had a good, solid growth future in, to move interstate and around the countryside following and broadening his career path and career experiences. edit to add: I still worked, when we moved around - just not in my career path jobs. I would take on 'helping to bring money into the household' jobs that were just what was available in the places we moved to for him

I had to put aside all my own future financial security and future career aspirations while I was breeding our children and while I was doing the best job possible to raise our children into the good and responsible citizens they are today. I did this almost completely singlehandedly when we were together and definitely completely singlehandedly after we separated.
And without going into unnecessary detail, I finally left my ex-husband, and if you asked anyone they would tell you that he was broken hearted and devastated. But that did not mean that he was faultless, only that he never expected me to be able to get away from him. There are not many people at all who know the true circumstances of our marriage. At the time I had no opportunity to explain, and nowadays I don't feel compelled to explain or justify myself to anyone.

After we had separated my ex-husband moved on and ever upwards in his career because of the career development and opportunities that I had assisted him to get. And he was able to minimise the amount he had to pay in child support due to various clever means. All the while continuing to portray what a victim he was because I had dared to leave him, and all the while never ever spending a cent more than he absolutely had to on the kids.

After we separated I spent all my time and energy trying to provide the best I could for my children. Not always successfully. This isn't meant as a 'poor me' story and it's an old story and I've made even more big mistakes since then!!!

But the point is that regardless of whether there was abuse in the relationship or not, my own life choices were put aside while we, as a couple, made his career development a priority, and while my own career opportunities were stifled. And after we separated, for ten or even more years after we separated, my financial and emotional priority became the children and their current and future needs. That influenced decisions I made and impacted on my continuing choices, and of course restricted what could be done with any money available - the children's needs were paramount at all times. My ex-husband did not have such restrictions. As a result his financial future is independently secure, and mine is not.

So be honest, if my ex-husband won money and I had a chance to get some, I couldn't give a shit if people thought of me as greedy or didn't think I deserved it. I believe I do deserve it, and I would be taking it, and I'd have the champagne in my hand as well.

And I don't know her story, but my point to you is - neither do you. And I'm not being judgemental about it, but you are.

Nope that would make it worse in my eyes Scooter.....IMHO it would mean shes still dependant on him. Whether he beat her or not she should not have taken the money...where the fuck is her pride??

She hadn't been dependent on him for at least the ten years since they'd separated. And we don't know whether she was dependent on him before that.

I don't know whether that woman is an absolute bitch who made his life miserable and doesn't deserve a cent, or whether he was an absolute arsehole and she deserves all the money she got and more.
I would imagine though, that she must have put forward a fairly compelling argument because they separated ten years ago, and despite this he at first offered her a million and then finally gave her 3.2 million in an out of court settlement. So was he worried that she would get even more if it went through the courts, or was it just that he couldn't be bothered with the hassle, or just decided he had enough to generously share?

If you think people like her are lazy and self-absorbed and have no pride just because they have taken money under those circumstances, then more feminist power to you, sister. I have got my pride, I've worked my arse off to provide for my kids and I haven't had five minutes for any degree of self -absorption because all my energy and time has gone into my children. And after all these years, if I was in her position, I would take that money in a heartbeat, and my conscience would be smiling with me.

edited to add some more spacing

[SisterMaryFellatio]

Women like what? Based on your statements here I would say I'm obviously I am one of the women who leave a bad taste in your mouth. The damn good slapping? Don't worry, I got plenty of those.

Alice if you care to read my post properly you will will see that unless you are "a lazy bitch whos to self absorbed and lazy to support herself" you are obviously not the sort of person I am referencing!

I don't see anything that indicates she was lazy and self-absorbed during that ten years. Unless leaving her husband because of another man automatically qualifies her as somehow lazy and self-absorbed without knowing any of the rest of the situation?

I accused her of being lazy and self absorbed for suing him for 6.5 million 10 years after they divorced when he offered her 1.6 million and offered to set up a trust fund for their daughter. Is this is not greed in its finest form? He wanted the 3.2 million she now has to go to their child but she had that vetoed.....she wanted the money for herself. Its worth noting that when he won the money there was a huge increase in maintainence payments. I repeat she wanted this money for herself NOT for her child!!!

source

It's extremely unlikely that his child support was fully covering all the costs toward the upbringing of the child,

and why the fuck should he? It takes two to make a baby. Why should he bear the total cost of supporting a child and her none?