Let's break up,' Thai lottery winner texts wife, who sues

[Liquorice]

pure greed. she is just trying to bite a part of her boyfriend's fortune. it's was really stupid to tell her about the lottery ticket.

hope she will loose the case. it's really hard to rob the father of a child in Thailand, if he is not married with the mother.

childcare should be none of the business of the state. it's up to father how much does he eager to give for a child.

your ex-husband gives you not enough to support your child? biology made it up to woman to choose a partner to make kids. That's why men have to spend so much time, energy and resources to get sex.

so if you chose the wrong guy - it's your mistake and nobody's else.

Are you serious?

He has a child with this woman, as a MAN he has responsibilities for that child and it does not matter what the law says.

If you really believe what you have written then I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and try to learn what it means to be a REAL MAN.

I hope this man comes to his senses and does the right thing. He won this money, he didn't work for it but luck has smiled upon him. He should now take care of his responsibilities and take care of his child with or without the woman.

sorry to disappoint you, but the whole idea of THE REAL MAN is a manipulation (among many others, of course) used by society in order to make men to behave in someone's else interests.

remember, all your "I am obligated" are someone's else "I want"

real REAL MAN does what he wants and wishes and does not give a rat's ass for what other people think REAL MAN is obligated to do.

people, be free!

Do you know the difference between a 'REAL MAN' and a Condom?

Condoms are no longer thick and insensitive!

Edited October 17, 2015 by Faz

[Berto]

Typical, use kids as an excuse to take advantage of husband. At least now he knows to who he was married to.

[GOLDBUGGY]

Reminds me of an old joke where the Husband comes home and says to his wife " We have just won 10 million pounds on the lottery, pack your bags"

"Oh wonderful" she screams, "where are we going?"

"I don't care, just pack your bags and sod off"

Sorry, leaving now....

Reminds me of a guy in Canada who won 12 M Dollars but was also more clever. He decided to Divorce his wife first and before he cashed his Wining Lotto Ticket in. Then almost a year after the draw and his Divorce was finalized, and just before the deadline, he cashed in his winning ticket.

When asked by reporters why he didn't claim his prize sooner he claimed he was going through some old shirts recently and found this ticket in his shirt pocket. So he decide for the hell of it to check it and it turned out to be the winning ticket. Unfortunately for him, his story made front page news across the country and his x-wife saw that.

In court he claimed that since he did not know he won this money until after the Divorce, and did not claim his prize then to, he should be allowed to keep that money all to himself. But the Judge he faced was very clever to. He told this man that it didn't matter when he cashed in the ticket or the circumstances leading up to him cashing it. That his ruling is based on him buying this winning ticket which was when he was still married to his x-wife. Thus his ruling was he had to give her 50% of his prize plus interest, and pay all court costs including her legal fees.

After the trial his x-wife was asked how she felt about all this. She just laughed and said she felt like she just won the Lotto. She was also asked about what she thought of her husbands lotto scheming plan. She told the reporter that after the Divorce had her x-husband contacted her and told her he won a Lotto, and wanted to give her 1 Million Dollars, she would have been overly delighted with just that. But with 6 Million Dollars now she said she is more happy about the final outcome. She also told the reporter her next plan was to go on a Singles Cruise. Go Figure?

[GOLDBUGGY]

"I don't know the law here but in England 'common law wifes' are not entitled to anything on a break up. "

In Australia you live together for 12 months and it is regarded as a de facto relationship and she can take you to court, just like a wife

Same in Canada to.

[kennypowers]

I don't know the law here but in England 'common law wifes' are not entitled to anything on a break up.

RUBBISH.

It is not rubbish.

A recent survey has shown that over half of UK citizens still believe in one of the biggest urban myths, that of of the 'common law marriage'.

Ask a lawyer.

[Prbkk]

Common Law Spouses (Man or Woman) have right to (up to 50%) of assets after co-habiting without a break after two years and where there is a Child from the relationship, additional division can be ordered by the Family Court.

so you can't just live with a woman you like without risking to loose half of your property?! so if we want to have relationship without obligations we have to live in separate houses?

it's even worse to be a man in the UK than I thought.... now I understand better why so many of you run away to Thailand from your feminist kingdom.

(remind myself: always live alone while in the UK)

It's not only the UK but just about every western country. The so called "no fault" divorce settlements , meant to be on the basis of a fair distribution of assets, in fact end up being more like 25/75 male/female in the final accounting.

[impulse]

If I were him, I'd be writing up a will that makes sure she doesn't get anything in the case of a suspicious death. Not even through the child, if that's possible.

Not sure whether I'd do that before or after doing the right thing by sharing the winnings with her. But I'd do it quickly...

[Whyamiandwhatamidoinghere]

Common law... Seems like she's been giving the milk free and now that there is a substantial amount of money involved she wants him to do right. I never understand why some women sell themselves short living with a man who is not legally your lawful husband and bear children with him and expect him to do right by her. If he "honest" he would have legally married her. So why is she so surprised of his action? Who will be the winner? The bloodsucking lawyer will end up with the majority of the money and the wife and husband will find themselves back to Poor Square One.

[Throatwobbler]

Another upstanding Thai man

Lol

no mate id not have a thai man in the house ( i like to keep what i own ) i do know ive now have come to understand why thai men do not want the thai tarts ))) - hell if he won 35,000 baht took it home said nothing and she found out ---she is liable to kill you for it

thais )))))) look woman don't deserve much!!!!! because put 90% to the test - go to an atm machine with an empty card stick it in try make a withdrawel - you knowing no dollars in it - watch the look of horror on her face))))

il wager $500 that 7 to 8 from 10 thai woman toss up the hands toss the hubby and take off down the street screaming to budda ''my atm him no good '' no work ((((( me to find another))))) lol lol lol

Sound silly!!!!! -- id like $80 for every time ive seen that situation in thailand since 2003 , id not have to work for the next 3 months ay!

ONLY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD WHERE THEY'D SELL EACH OTHER UP THE RIVER!!!! FOR $25 __( AND YOU MISTER WESTERNER IS NOT EXEMPT !!

Sounds like someone got burned. A bit bitter are we?

[ozyjon]

Lets watch this unfold

we might learn from this

[Alwyn]

I don't know the law here but in England 'common law wifes' are not entitled to anything on a break up.

RUBBISH.

The only thing rubbish is the term "common law wives" as there is no such thing. Cohabitating partners are not entitled to anything unless there has been a cohabitation contract drawn up first. Even then this is shaky grounds and not necessarily enforceable. A partner has no rights over the other person's belongings/assets nor liability over the partner's debts. If one dies, the family have the rights of inheritance, not the surviving partner - unless a will is in place of course. The term "common law spouse" which is commonly used to describe a cohabiting couple have no legal recognition in the UK. In Sweden it's different, after 6 months of cohabitation (sambor) the couple has the same rights as a married couple.

[Alwyn]

"yayyy, I've won the lottery darling!! Pack your bags!!" ... Wife: "Yayyyy... warm weather or cold"?? "who cares, <deleted> off"!!

[GOLDBUGGY]

Common Law Spouses (Man or Woman) have right to (up to 50%) of assets after co-habiting without a break after two years and where there is a Child from the relationship, additional division can be ordered by the Family Court.

so you can't just live with a woman you like without risking to loose half of your property?! so if we want to have relationship without obligations we have to live in separate houses?

it's even worse to be a man in the UK than I thought.... now I understand better why so many of you run away to Thailand from your feminist kingdom.

(remind myself: always live alone while in the UK)

Well, it is not exactly like that. The key here is that they have to be "co-habit" (having sexual relations) and also living together as husband and wife.

Many people buy property together but don't live this way. Many people also share accommodations, especially college students, and don't live that way, although sex with that partner may not be totally out of the question

But before you invite the Ole Girl Friend to move in with you to try things out first, one has to be more careful now for sure.

[gandalf12]

This guy won the lottery and now it's on your bike <deleted> ......

If at all possible, he should have kept the win quite and the divorce even quiter.

You cant get divorced if you are not married

[fiddlehead]

The root of all evil they say.
In this case, it broke up a family, probably will be enemies now instead of a happy couple.

He just might drink and party himself to death.

After the lawyers get their share of course.

So, who wins? Not the child.

[Alwyn]

I don't know the law here but in England 'common law wifes' are not entitled to anything on a break up.

Unless they have a baby together,

In which case she gets the house, and 15% of his salary for the next 19 years.

Not true, and not true.

Common law partners have rights in the UK.

Under UK law even when a married couple divorce, unless one party takes out a 'clean break order', one of the parties can still sue for financial support in the case where one of the parties wins or inherits a substantial amount of money.

You are totally wrong. Firstly there is no such thing a "common law spouses" in the UK, it is not legally recognised, period. One partner has absolutely no shout on the other person's assets (nor responsibility for their debts either). If one dies the dying person's family has legal right to the dead person's assets etc, not his "partner"; Unless a will has been drawn up of course and even then, how often do we see the dead person's family contesting these wills. People can write up cohabitation contracts before moving in together but even they are not very robust. If one partner dies, the other partner has no rights to the dead persons bank accounts - unless they have joint accounts. It's pretty harsh as it happens but it is what it is.

More info here

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

[TimmyT]

Well, it is not exactly like that. The key here is that they have to be "co-habit" (having sexual relations) and also living together as husband and wife.

Many people buy property together but don't live this way. Many people also share accommodations, especially college students, and don't live that way, although sex with that partner may not be totally out of the question

But before you invite the Ole Girl Friend to move in with you to try things out first, one has to be more careful now for sure.

if I would live in the UK I would just stay alone, and visit as many women as I wish at there own accommodations.

at first left liberals tried to force men give away 50% of his assets or more by divorce. men stopped to get married and started to live with women without marriage. and leftists made a law that a man should give away 50% even without marriage! lol

what will be the next? The law requires all men to enter into relationships with women? a double or triple tax for all men, so nobody, even homosexuals, celibates asexuals, impotent men, misogynists, run away from supporting the "weaker sex"?

it's easy to be a woman nowadays in the UK

lol

Edited October 17, 2015 by TimmyT

[pmh2009]

There an Asian saying "You withstand poverty but not monetary wealth!"

[cheapcanuck]

The only winners here will be the lawyers...the winnings will be eaten up by the fees. For the childs sake I hope they get there act together and settle before nothings left.

[GAZZPA]

pure greed. she is just trying to bite a part of her boyfriend's fortune. it's was really stupid to tell her about the lottery ticket.

hope she will loose the case. it's really hard to rob the father of a child in Thailand, if he is not married with the mother.

childcare should be none of the business of the state. it's up to father how much does he eager to give for a child.

your ex-husband gives you not enough to support your child? biology made it up to woman to choose a partner to make kids. That's why men have to spend so much time, energy and resources to get sex.

so if you chose the wrong guy - it's your mistake and nobody's else.

Are you serious?

He has a child with this woman, as a MAN he has responsibilities for that child and it does not matter what the law says.

If you really believe what you have written then I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and try to learn what it means to be a REAL MAN.

I hope this man comes to his senses and does the right thing. He won this money, he didn't work for it but luck has smiled upon him. He should now take care of his responsibilities and take care of his child with or without the woman.

The woman will not give up custody now... The child is her only meal ticket to half/some of this fortune...

Sorry fella, I worded that badly. I didn't mean gain custody, what I meant was he should support the kid even if they are not in a relationship (with or without the woman).

[GAZZPA]

Well, it is not exactly like that. The key here is that they have to be "co-habit" (having sexual relations) and also living together as husband and wife.

Many people buy property together but don't live this way. Many people also share accommodations, especially college students, and don't live that way, although sex with that partner may not be totally out of the question

But before you invite the Ole Girl Friend to move in with you to try things out first, one has to be more careful now for sure.

if I would live in the UK I would just stay alone, and visit as many women as I wish at there own accommodations.

at first left liberals tried to force men give away 50% of his assets or more by divorce. men stopped to get married and started to live with women without marriage. and leftists made a law that a man should give away 50% even without marriage! lol

what will be the next? The law requires all men to enter into relationships with women? a double or triple tax for all men, so nobody, even homosexuals, celibates asexuals, impotent men, misogynists, run away from supporting the "weaker sex"?

it's easy to be a woman nowadays in the UK

lol

Asexuals? You mean hermaphrodites? Don't think they can reproduce on their own though.

I think if you live together and build assets together then on parting you split it 50/50,, thats not unfair and nothing to do with "leftists"

Wake up to the 21st century fella.

[GAZZPA]

I don't know the law here but in England 'common law wifes' are not entitled to anything on a break up.

Unless they have a baby together,

In which case she gets the house, and 15% of his salary for the next 19 years.

Not true, and not true.

Common law partners have rights in the UK.

Under UK law even when a married couple divorce, unless one party takes out a 'clean break order', one of the parties can still sue for financial support in the case where one of the parties wins or inherits a substantial amount of money.

You are totally wrong. Firstly there is no such thing a "common law spouses" in the UK, it is not legally recognised, period. One partner has absolutely no shout on the other person's assets (nor responsibility for their debts either). If one dies the dying person's family has legal right to the dead person's assets etc, not his "partner"; Unless a will has been drawn up of course and even then, how often do we see the dead person's family contesting these wills. People can write up cohabitation contracts before moving in together but even they are not very robust. If one partner dies, the other partner has no rights to the dead persons bank accounts - unless they have joint accounts. It's pretty harsh as it happens but it is what it is.

More info here

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/relationships/living-together-marriage-and-civil-partnership/living-together-and-marriage-legal-differences/

I am not totally wrong. It is true that you do not have automatic legal rights when you are living together unmarried as you do when you are married, no dispute there. It is also true that "common law" is a misused term and has not existed in legal terms in the UK for about 250 years (just looked that up), but people use it anyway I guess it should be called cohabiting nowadays.

Also, your quotes are not about 2 people splitting up, you have quoted when someone dies without making a will, thats completely different.

But if you are buying a house together and have a joint mortgage you DO have rights. If the house is in just 1 partners name and they contest your claim then you have to prove you have "contributed" to the finances of the house and prove intent.

Please see link below to UK law website and also I have pasted the quote for you to read.. So, you certainly do have rights to claim if it is right to do so.

https://www.lawontheweb.co.uk/personal/living-together

However, even if you do not have joint ownership of your property, you may be able to demonstrate that you are entitled to a share of it through ‘common intention’, which means there was an agreement between the couple that the property was shared. You could achieve this if you contributed financially to the purchase of the property or helped with mortgage payments, for example.

[TimmyT]

Well, it is not exactly like that. The key here is that they have to be "co-habit" (having sexual relations) and also living together as husband and wife.

Many people buy property together but don't live this way. Many people also share accommodations, especially college students, and don't live that way, although sex with that partner may not be totally out of the question

But before you invite the Ole Girl Friend to move in with you to try things out first, one has to be more careful now for sure.

if I would live in the UK I would just stay alone, and visit as many women as I wish at there own accommodations.

at first left liberals tried to force men give away 50% of his assets or more by divorce. men stopped to get married and started to live with women without marriage. and leftists made a law that a man should give away 50% even without marriage! lol

what will be the next? The law requires all men to enter into relationships with women? a double or triple tax for all men, so nobody, even homosexuals, celibates asexuals, impotent men, misogynists, run away from supporting the "weaker sex"?

it's easy to be a woman nowadays in the UK

lol

Asexuals? You mean hermaphrodites? Don't think they can reproduce on their own though.

I think if you live together and build assets together then on parting you split it 50/50,, thats not unfair and nothing to do with "leftists"

Wake up to the 21st century fella.

asexuals - those without libido. I know it's hard for you to imagine this, but there are plenty of them all over the World

and what if I want to live together buy build assets separately? or this is not an option?

and this what you call freedom...

the best way to use a slave is to convince him he is free

if I would want to build assets together with a woman - I would marry her. and if I don't marry her but we live together - it's a clear sign that I want to build assets separately.

but nowadays who ask what does man want? not the UK government, no doubt!

lol

[starchild5]

...and regarding Thai only doing this...check this out ..??

News UK News Euromillions

Adrian Bayford: Lottery winner who split from wife following £148m jackpot 'splashes £2m on horses for 28-year-old fiancée'

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/adrian-bayford-lottery-winner-who-5648950

Man Wins Lottery, Leaves Wife

http://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/man-wins-lottery-leaves-wife#.et0XXvAmk

Chinese man who divorced wife after winning lottery ordered to hand over part of the cash

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/society/article/1858300/chinese-man-who-divorced-wife-after-winning-lottery-ordered-hand

Seems like a Universal problem with Men

[arrowsdawdle]

Good on her... hope she wins for the sake of the child.

Not a chance. Sakdina dictates that the deepest pockets always wins.

[GAZZPA]

pure greed. she is just trying to bite a part of her boyfriend's fortune. it's was really stupid to tell her about the lottery ticket.

hope she will loose the case. it's really hard to rob the father of a child in Thailand, if he is not married with the mother.

childcare should be none of the business of the state. it's up to father how much does he eager to give for a child.

your ex-husband gives you not enough to support your child? biology made it up to woman to choose a partner to make kids. That's why men have to spend so much time, energy and resources to get sex.

so if you chose the wrong guy - it's your mistake and nobody's else.

Are you serious?

He has a child with this woman, as a MAN he has responsibilities for that child and it does not matter what the law says.

If you really believe what you have written then I suggest you take a long hard look at yourself and try to learn what it means to be a REAL MAN.

I hope this man comes to his senses and does the right thing. He won this money, he didn't work for it but luck has smiled upon him. He should now take care of his responsibilities and take care of his child with or without the woman.

sorry to disappoint you, but the whole idea of THE REAL MAN is a manipulation (among many others, of course) used by society in order to make men to behave in someone's else interests.

remember, all your "I am obligated" are someone's else "I want"

real REAL MAN does what he wants and wishes and does not give a rat's ass for what other people think REAL MAN is obligated to do.

people, be free!

You are clueless and I am laughing while reading this drivel.

See if you can consider the possibility that a MAN wants to contribute financially to the childs upbringing and he wants to do that because it is simply his flesh and blood and wants the best for him / her.

Men do not do go through life behaving irresponsibly and not giving a rats ass about anyone else. And the definition of obligation is not doing what someone else wants, so no I won't remember it because its crap.

Obligation is about your duty and responsibility, we all have these things,, I assume you pay rent and pay for your water and electricity (or do you leave it and not give a rats ass), I assume you would help your elderly parents out if they needed some shopping (or do leave it and not give a rats ass), I assume you go to work to get paid (or do you just sponge off everyone and not give a rats ass), i could go on but you should get my point by now.

What you are describing is not "freedom" you are ironically trapping yourself in a spiral of decline. For every duty (responsibility) you fulfil there is always reward, example, you work you get paid, you bring up your kids you get immeasurable love and enjoyment from watching them grow, etc etc,,

Your philosophy (if you can call it that) just leads to loneliness and misery as everyone labels you as a loser and a "A" hole.

So, good luck with that, I hope we never meet.

[puukao]

I was married when I won the lottery....about 500,000 USD. no kids, no pets. we went on a hike and i "fell and hit my head on a rock". luckily, she didn't see me fall, but saw me on the trail...amnesia.....i forgot my name....

she went crazy after a week.....started yelling, "i want a divorce, i don't want anything from you."

i said, "sign here"

end of story

well, except i went to thailand and got married 5 times, 11 houses, lost it all.......

[GAZZPA]

Well, it is not exactly like that. The key here is that they have to be "co-habit" (having sexual relations) and also living together as husband and wife.

Many people buy property together but don't live this way. Many people also share accommodations, especially college students, and don't live that way, although sex with that partner may not be totally out of the question

But before you invite the Ole Girl Friend to move in with you to try things out first, one has to be more careful now for sure.

if I would live in the UK I would just stay alone, and visit as many women as I wish at there own accommodations.

at first left liberals tried to force men give away 50% of his assets or more by divorce. men stopped to get married and started to live with women without marriage. and leftists made a law that a man should give away 50% even without marriage! lol

what will be the next? The law requires all men to enter into relationships with women? a double or triple tax for all men, so nobody, even homosexuals, celibates asexuals, impotent men, misogynists, run away from supporting the "weaker sex"?

it's easy to be a woman nowadays in the UK

lol

Asexuals? You mean hermaphrodites? Don't think they can reproduce on their own though.

I think if you live together and build assets together then on parting you split it 50/50,, thats not unfair and nothing to do with "leftists"

Wake up to the 21st century fella.

asexuals - those without libido. I know it's hard for you to imagine this, but there are plenty of them all over the World

and what if I want to live together buy build assets separately? or this is not an option?

and this what you call freedom...

the best way to use a slave is to convince him he is free

if I would want to build assets together with a woman - I would marry her. and if I don't marry her but we live together - it's a clear sign that I want to build assets separately.

but nowadays who ask what does man want? not the UK government, no doubt!

lol

Just realised its you again.

And if the woman is at home brining up your kids giving you time to go out and build those assets?

50/50 all the way.

Seems to be the normal thing nowadays so many seem to agree with fair split, but you are entitled to your opinion.

I get it, you want to live in a world where everything always goes your way and you can chose to do anything you want and not suffer any consequences and you don't give a rats ass,, your description on how men should think and behave, and which you call freedom.

The ladies must love you,,,

[Oziex1]

So this is the luck they dream of, many stories from all parts of the globe on how lottery wins are anything but happy ever after events.

[TimmyT]

GAZZPA,

See if you can consider the possibility that a MAN wants to contribute financially to the childs upbringing and he wants to do that because it is simply his flesh and blood and wants the best for him / her.

if the man decides to support his child himself, not because he has "obligations" but because he want his kid to have a good life - no problem, I respect that a lot

Men do not do go through life behaving irresponsibly and not giving a rats ass about anyone else. And the definition of obligation is not doing what someone else wants, so no I won't remember it because its crap.

and here comes the manipulation. How do you know what men should do and what they shouldn't? your parents taught you so? school? society? this is what manipulations is all about.

all human ideas that somebody is obligated to do something came from somebody's desire that certain things should be done.

or you think it came from God?

lol

Obligation is about your duty and responsibility, we all have these things,

no we don't. it's just an illusion, intentionally created for certain reasons. this what women (and other weak who want to be supported) want us to believe in. for their simple benefit.

all these ranting about "responsibilities", "obligations", "entitlement" is just a way to force people do things they don't want to do. this is what psychologists call manipulation.

I assume you pay rent and pay for your water and electricity

yes, because I signed a contract. you can call it an "obligation" too, but it's a completely different one - it was caused not by manipulation but by agreement of both parties - electric company and me. and both of us get benefits - I get the electricity and the company gets the money.

in manipulative "obligation" only one party gets benefit, and the other one get the sense of guilt. looks like not a fair exchange...

lol

Edited October 17, 2015 by TimmyT