Massive Divorce Awards and Settlements – Are They Ever Really Justifed?

Stack of Canadian Dollar

Recently in Time magazine I noticed an article detailing a British divorce judgment ordering investor Chris Hohn to pay his estranged American-born wife Jamie Cooper-Hohn about $530 million – which is apparently a record in the U.K.

As large as that sum may seem, it’s actually not the largest in the world:  that dubious honour goes to U.S. multi-billionaire Harold Hamm, the CEO of Continental Resources, and his former wife Sue Ann, who reached a divorce settlement of about $1 billion in early October of this year.

It may not be surprising to learn that as far as these massive divorce settlements are concerned, Canada’s largest awards truly pale in comparison.  In 2012, Maclean’s magazine reported on a list of several high-dollar-value settlements involving Canadian businesspeople and celebrities.

And although it was only an interim (temporary) award, let’s not forget that Michael McCain, the CEO of Canadian food conglomerate McCain’s, was ordered to pay his former wife of 30 years the sum of $175,000 a month, pending their divorce trial.

In virtually all of these large awards and settlements, the common denominator is generally the exceptionally long marriage between the couple, often lasting 25 or 30 years (or more).  Also – and perhaps it goes without saying – in most cases they had enjoyed a certain lifestyle together, one that was commensurate to their enormous wealth and which had to be maintained for the lower-earning spouse at some level, after the split. As we have written previously, these are two (of many) factors that Canadian courts will also consider in determining a divorce award, or in considering the appropriateness of a settlement or separation agreement.

Do you think these huge divorce awards can ever be justified?

Contact us for a free consultation about your own divorce.





CLICK HERE FOR YOUR  FREE GUIDE TO DIVORCE



Share on Pinterest
The materials contained in this website are intended to provide general information and comment only and should not be relied or construed as legal advice or opinion. While we endeavor to keep the information on this web site as up to date, accurate and complete as reasonably possible, we do not warrant the completeness, timeliness or accuracy of anything contained in this web site. The application and impact of laws can vary widely, based on the specific facts involved. For any particular fact situation, we urge you to consult an experienced lawyer with any specific legal questions you may have. Your use of this website doe not constitute or create a lawyer-client relationship. Should you wish to retain our firm, kindly contact our office to set up a meeting with a lawyer.