'Career Divorcee' in £45m Battle with Fourth Husband, Took £18m From 3 Ex-Husbands

Tyrael · #1 15th-February-2008

Quote:

Divorcee in £45m battle with fourth husband
By Stephen Adams
Last Updated: 1:38am GMT 20/12/2007

A woman who has been awarded an estimated £18 million in three divorces is at the centre of a test case for pre-nuptial agreements after seeking share of her fourth husband's £45 million fortune.

Susan Crossley, 50, claims the agreement she signed with her husband Stuart, 62, a multi-millionaire property developer, is invalid because he failed to tell her about the "tens of millions" he was holding in offshore accounts.

Mrs Crossley, who was previously married to Robert Sangster, the late Vernons pools heir and racing magnate, is trying to block Mr Crossley from using the agreement in the courts.

The former model, whose first two husbands were the Kwik Save heir Kevin Nicholson and the Lilley and Skinner shoe chain heir Peter Lilley, has argued that the property baron's accounts in Monaco and Andorra contained up to £60 million.

Mr Crossley, however, wants to avoid the normally protracted divorce proceedings and protect his money by relying on their pre-nuptial agreement. Yesterday he won a significant victory which will see the matter decided in a day in February.

The couple drew up a pre-nup shortly before their marriage in January 2006, following a whirlwind romance.

The contract allowed them to walk away with what they had taken into the marriage.

However, after Mrs Crossley filed for divorce in August, she turned to the courts, arguing that the agreement was invalid because her husband failed to tell her of the full extent of his fortune. He retaliated by asking the High Court to disregard normal divorce procedures, on the basis of the length of the marriage, the lack of children, the independent wealth of both parties and the pre-nuptial agreement.

In October, Mr Justice Bennett agreed and ruled that the case could be dealt with in a day rather than being spread over 18 months, despite the fact that pre-nuptial agreements are not binding under English law.

Mrs Crossley subsequently took the matter to the Appeal Court, which yesterday ruled against her. The ruling was seen as a significant boost to prospects of pre-nuptial agreements being formally recognised by the courts.

Lord Justice Thorpe, one of the country's most senior divorce judges, said: "If ever there is to be a paradigm case in which the courts will look to the pre-nuptial agreement as not simply one of the peripheral factors of the case but a factor of magnetic importance it seems to me that this is such a case."

The judge said Mr Crossley's offshore accounts contained comparatively small amounts of money, adding that Mrs Crossley would get a chance in February to bring evidence over the validity of the pre-nup.

Speaking after yesterday's ruling, Mr Crossley said: "This is a fair decision. I am upset that our marriage failed."

Mark Harper, Mr Crossley's solicitor, said: "We are delighted with this decision- it is a very significant step forward for pre-nuptial agreements

Article link.

She's a fucking ultra-skank succubus thief. She doesn't have any true, genuine right to claim any of her ex-husbands money. Trapping rich men into a marriage based on corrupt feminazi laws and then plunder their money is like a stinking female vulture backed by the hazardous winds of feminism. May she burn in hell for all eternity.

**Percy** · #2 15th-February-2008

Quote:

Trapping rich men into a marriage based on corrupt feminazi laws and then plunder their money is like a stinking female vulture backed by the hazardous winds of feminism.

Yep.

The meaning is clear even if the grammar is shit.

yohan · #3 15th-February-2008

The man was informed about the past of this woman, who had 3 husbands and took money from them all.

Why did he marry her?

Pre-nups - they MIGHT be helpful, but as said, they are not always legally binding...

Again:

Why did he marry such a dirty-minded woman....?

Some men are doing strange actions, which are causing them only headache in their life.

With such a lot of money he has in his accounts, he could order with a single phone-call every night a different escort girl...much better, if you ask me.

themanonthestreet · #4 15th-February-2008

He more than likely didn't even know Yohan.. How could he have? And make such a stupid decision....

Also, they clearly state that Prenups are non-binding under English law.. then why did he have one? If he is such a rich and powerful individual, wouldn't he know, or have a pack of lawyers (baristers?) to inform him?

What he SHOULD do is counter against HER for some of HER money.....

TMOTS

**bachelor tom** · #5 15th-February-2008

Sounds like we have our golddigger of the month

lolintertubes · #6 15th-February-2008

What a boot. I have to say the guy is pretty stupid himself. How could he not know what she was like?

bobx23456 · #7 16th-February-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by lolintertubes

What a boot. I have to say the guy is pretty stupid himself. How could he not know what she was like?

She'll be darn lucky if the guy doesn't invite her to go "fishing."

Blessings

Bob

Tyrael · #8 16th-February-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by themanonthestreet

What he SHOULD do is counter against HER for some of HER money.....

TMOTS

What he should do is donate and support the Men's Rights Movement to save others.

**Percy** · #9 16th-February-2008

Quote:

What he should do is donate and support the Men's Rights Movement to save others.

Yep.

Far too few rich guys help the MRM. Look at the little scouse git MacCartney. He should be funding a fight rather than tugging his forelock to his ex, the gold-digging, one-legged thief. These guys are keen enough to pay millions to lawyers when an FMJ costs only 50c.

Tyrael · #10 16th-February-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Percy

Yep.

Far too few rich guys help the MRM. Look at the little scouse git MacCartney. He should be funding a fight rather than tugging his forelock to his ex, the gold-digging, one-legged thief. These guys are keen enough to pay millions to lawyers when an FMJ costs only 50c.

Those rich men should be contacted somehow to request donations, support, inform them and such.