Attorney Matthew R. Arnold answering the question: “Are overtime, bonuses, and commissions included in calculating child support?”
British tabloids were covered in articles about the final judgment in one of the country’s longest running and most contentious divorces cases. Late last week a British High Court judge issued his ruling in the case, ordering a supposedly penniless businessman to give his wife upwards of $30 million.
Though it may seem hard to believe, the result managed to anger both sides as each had very different views of what the family’s finances were. The unfortunate judge was left to try and divine the truth between two very divergent versions of reality.
The first theory was advanced by the husband, Scot Young. Scot spent the entire six years of his trial claiming that he was near destitution, arguing that his once lucrative business had folded during the financial crisis. Scot said that he went from hundreds of millions of pounds in assets to more than 30 million pounds in debt. As a result, Scot claimed he was unable to afford to pay his ex-wife any money or pay her whopping $9 million dollar legal tab.
The second theory was proposed by Scot’s former wife, Michelle. Michelle always said that her husband was hiding vast amounts of money in offshore accounts and had purposely made himself appear bankrupt for the sole purpose of avoiding forking over millions in a divorce. Michelle claimed that her husband was worth hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly even billions. She said that her husband’s offer of a $300 million settlement several years ago proved that he was sitting on more money then he claimed.