Judge Orders Car Crash Amputee to Pay > Half of His £500k Compensation to Ex-Wife

NegrophobeNegrophobe Regular
edited February 2011 in Spurious Generalities
Divorce judge orders car crash amputee to hand over more than half of his £500k compensation to ex-wife of five years

Last updated at 5:25 PM on 7th February 2011

- Kevin Mansfield met his wife ten years after losing his leg in a car crash in 1992
- They had two children before end of five-year marriage
- Judge says she should get £285,000 of the compensation payout which is his only means of support.

A disabled man has been ordered to hand most of a £500,000 compensation pay-out for losing his leg to his ex-wife in a divorce settlement.

Kevin Mansfield said he faces losing his home a result of the decision to award the money - his only means of support - to his former partner.

Ex-wife Catherine is in line to receive £285,000 of the money, but Mr Mansfield today won the right to appeal the ruling at the Civil Appeals Court in London.
Mr Mansfield, 41, was still a student when he lost a leg and suffered serious spinal injuries when he was hit by a car in 1992.

He met his now ex-wife Catherine, 37, five years after he received a £500,000 compensation payout in 1998. After having two children together they split in 2008.
But, at a divorce hearing in May last year, Mr Mansfield was horrified to hear a judge rule that his compensation should be 'put in the pot' and divided as an asset of the marriage.

Alan Barton, for Mr Mansfield, today told the court he had been forced to sell his car on eBay and is faced with losing his home after the divorce judge handed his ex-wife the money.

The barrister said that, if the decision is allowed to stand, Mr Mansfield will have no choice but to sell his home - which has been specially adapted for his needs - and move to a cheaper part of the country, away from his children.

Arguing Mr Mansfield, from Chelmsford, had suffered a 'manifest injustice', Mr Barton said the judge paid too much attention to 'the ideal situation that the wife would like' and 'ignored his needs as a disabled man'.

Lady Justice Black has now recognised the importance of Mr Mansfield's case by granting him permission to appeal against the divorce payout.

'The husband's disabilities and amputated limb are an important factor in this case,' she said, and her fellow judge, Lord Justice Thorpe, added that the case raises 'an important point of principle'.

Mr Barton earlier told the judges: 'Where a wife marries a husband who is seriously disabled, and all the assets come from his damages, how far do his needs as a disabled man have any priority over the ideal situation that the wife would like to be in?'

Underlining that 'Mr Mansfield's only resources come from his damages award,' the barrister said the judge had also 'over-prioritised' the needs of the two 'normal, healthy children', who are cared for by their mother at her home in Warwick Square, Chelmsford.

Lady Justice Black said the case was unique 'because the only capital arises from the damages awarded and he met the wife in circumstances of enduring disability.'


Mr Mansfield, outside court after the hearing, hailed an important day in court for disabled people who find themselves embroiled in divorce proceedings.

'I'm actually really shy but this is such an important case. I want everyone to know the same could happen to them.

'It could happen to any war vet coming back from Afghanistan. They could get compensation, then meet someone years later and have it taken away,' he said.
Mr Barton also spoke of the importance of the case and the reasons he brought it to court.

'It is a very unusual case. There have only been three cases involving similar situations in legal history, and nothing exactly like this before,' he said.

'It is much more difficult for a disabled person to go through a divorce than an able-bodied person, especially when, as in this case, there are young children involved. Which comes first - your injuries or the children?' Mr Barton added.

Even financial compensation for a disability is unsafe from a superficial; ignorant and cold, frigid cunt of a divorce plundering ex-wife. It's disgusting how they transfer over half of Mr. Mansfield's disability compensation money (£285,000 of £500,000), when he's barely able to work, when his slag of a wife is in full-health and able to take on a full-time job. This story shows the absolute nasty and parasitical nature of the woman and our disgusting matriarchist courts of law.

How little he gets to see his children post-divorce, whom also seem to be taken away from him, is yet another issue.
'It is much more difficult for a disabled person to go through a divorce than an able-bodied person, especially when, as in this case, there are young children involved. Which comes first - your injuries or the children?'
A divorce payout is much more than children require for child-support, it's simply leeching his only means of support to cater to an "ideal situation" for his cunt of a wife, who had also taken his children away; without any assurance of shared parenting.

We all know it'd be different if the wife had been disabled and had a compensation payout, she would have kept it all; the man would have been seen as a "pig".


  • MooseKnuckleMooseKnuckle Regular
    edited February 2011
    in the words of kanye west "we want prenup, we want prenup. yeah it's somethin' that you need to have. cuz when she leave yo ass she gonna leave with half."
Sign In or Register to comment.