It was revealed last week that one of London’s best traders used £45 million in shares to fund his divorce. The city tycoon, Sir Martin Sorrell, used 50% of his stake in the firm WPP as collateral against loans he had amassed. The money was required to fund the business tycoon’s £30 million divorce from his wife Sandra, who he had been married to for thirty-three years.

The divorce settlement, that saw Martin’s wife awarded £23 million cash, an expensive property and even parking spots at London store Harrods, is the largest award in the history of British divorce.

It was revealed during the divorce proceedings that the marriage of Sir Martin Sorrell and Lady Sorrell turned sour because Martin was too career focused. He ended up living in the couple’s basement towards the end of their marriage.

The property that Lady Sorrell was awarded in the couple’s divorce was a town house in London’s Knightsbridge, worth a reported £3.25 million. The Harrods parking spaces are said to be worth £200,000 for the pair.

As a result of the huge divorce payout, Sir Martin Sorrell was forced to sell £12 million of his shares to raise the capital.

A man is standing accused of murdering his wife and disposing of the body in order to avoid an expensive divorce settlement. The court has heard how Martin Hale allegedly murdered his wife, and even enquired with a friend about using his incinerator in his pet crematorium.

Martin’s wife Maureen disappeared in 1999, and Martin didn’t report his wife as missing for three days. The court also heard how police discovered a list in Martin’s briefcase that noted ideas on how dispose of a body.

The list contained in the briefcase stated the ways Martin thought he could dispose of a body.

1. At Sea 2. By fire 3. By acid 4. Landsite.

The court also heard of how Martin Hale offered a friend £20,000 to use his incinerator, but was refused.

Maureen’s body however, has never been found. It is alleged that Martin Hale discovered that his wife was having an affair, and that she filed for divorce from Martin Hale just a few short months before she went missing.

A further note was found in Martin’s belongings that read:

Now Maureen says she does not love me anymore but she’d like to keep the £300,000 house, all the children, and an income to keep her and the children in the style she has become accustomed to. i.e nice car, money, no job and friends to visit and have coffee with.

The murder trial is continuing.

Sir Paul McCartney looks set to marry his new girlfriend after her divorce was finalised last week. McCartney’s girlfriend, Nancy Shevell, divorced Bruce Blakeman last week in the courts.

The news was released by two of the tabloid press this weekend.

The Sunday Telegraph commented:

The divorce was made final by the … Supreme Court of the state of New York on December 9, after she had been legally separated from him for one year and sixty days.

Mayerson Stutman was the divorce lawyer for Nancy Shevell, but he has so far not commented on the rumours of her divorce being finalised.

The story in the Telegraph continued:

Sir Paul and his first wife were friends with the Blakemans before Linda’s death from cancer in 1998, as they knew each other from holidaying in the upmarket coastal resort of The Hamptons on Long Island.

Sir Paul McCartney has only just recently finalised his own expensive divorce from Heather Mills McCartney. Both Nancy and Paul are expected to appear in Edinburgh later this week when they attend the opening of a new photography exhibition from Paul’s brother.

It’s common knowledge that divorce makes men poorer, but that knowledge may just been dispelled as a myth by new research. The research shows that just after divorce the income of women tends to drop, whereas the man experiences no such reduction in his income.

The research actually went further and hints that the income of the man actually increases following a divorce, by almost 33%. In contrast single mothers find their income drop significantly, by over 10%.

The for Social and Economic Research’s Professor Stephen Jenkins stated:

The idea that fathers, on average, are worse off after a divorce than the mother of their children is wrong.

Professor Jenkins conducted his study, entitled “Marital Splits and Income Changes over the Longer Term”. His research found that divorces involving children meant severe penalties for the mother in terms of her income, whereas fathers find that income increases and their costs decrease.

He also states that only 30% of mothers actually receive any form of maintenance payments from the father of their children.

The percentage change in income is less if they have worked beforehand and continue working afterwards.

The impact is also reduced if they start working after the relationship breakdown. There is also a potential positive impact if she remarries. But the impact is a small one as people tend not to repartner quickly.

Bernie Ecclestone is one of the richest men in the country, and his impending divorce from his unlikely wife Slavica could prove to be one of the most expensive divorce settlements in history. Bernie has pulled out the big guns though, in the shape of Lady Ward, who is one of the country’s brightest and best divorce lawyers, and also represented Guy Ritchie in his divorce from Madonna, landing the British film director £45 in his divorce settlement.

Bernie has had to opt for one of the country’s top divorce lawyers because £2.4 billion of the F1 boss’ personal fortune is registered to his wife.

There were rumours that Bernie and Slavica were back together when they spent time together at Christmas, but the appointment of Lady Ward by Bernie suggests that the divorce is very much still on, and potentially very costly.

It is believed that Lady Ward will attempt to help Bernie Ecclestone recoup some of the money that he has placed in his wife’s name, the bulk of which is believed to be held in off-shore accounts for tax purposes.

According to newspaper the Evening Standard:

Bernie may have to sue Slavica to get his money back. She will have to pay him the biggest settlement of all time. All the money in her name in the trust will have to go into the matrimonial pot.

A case of this magnitude is crying out for careful negotiation. This is not the sort of case that should go to court.

A gay couple who are seeking a divorce in the US state of Texas look to be denied their appeal by the Attorney General, who has vowed to fight gay divorce. The couple, whose names have been withheld, were legally married in 2006 in the state of Massachusetts, but they are now residing in Texas.

The couple have cited “discord or conflict of personalities” as a reason for divorce, in what is believed to be the first gay divorce case in Texas. The two men have been told to return to Massachusetts, where they were married, to get divorced there.

Greg Abbott, the Attorney General for Texas, stated about the gay divorce case:

In the State of Texas, marriage is – and has always been – a union between one man and one woman.

To prevent other states from imposing their values on this state, Texas voters overwhelmingly approved a Constitutional amendment specifically defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Because the parties’ Massachusetts-issued arrangement is not a marriage under Texas law, they are asking a Texas court to recognise – and dissolve – something that does not legally exist.

The divorce lawyer acting on behalf of the applicant in the case means to fight the ruling from the Attorney General, arguing that the men have a right to their divorce under US law.

A man who forged his wife’s signature in order to divorce her so that he could remarry faces jail. Khalil Kazi divorced his wife without her knowing in 2005 and then married another woman in Morocco. His first wife, Meimuna, was severely disabled back in the UK and knew nothing about her ‘divorce’.

The court heard from the prosecutors that Khalil Kazi had planned to keep hold of the £1 million his wife received from a compensation claim against the hospital, that left her wheelchair bound.

Kazi was convicted of perjury in court in Leeds, and was freed on bail pending his sentence, where he has been advised by the judge that he faces a custodial sentence.

The judge stated:

It’s inevitable that for offences of this gravity, which strike at the root of the judicial system, a prison sentence is inevitable. How long that will be I don’t know until I have heard from your counsel.

The thirty-nine-year-old man faked his divorce papers and a witness statement to dissolve his arranged marriage.

The couple have a son together, who was born in 1996. In 1998 Meimuna was misdiagnosed when she suffered with back pain, and as a result has been left a paraplegic ever since.

It seems that almost every celebrity couple are heading for the divorce courts lately, with Madonna and Amy Winehouse leading the way. Jennifer Lopez (known to her friends and her publicist as J.Lo) isn’t one of them according to her.

After thirty-nine-year-old Jennifer was photographed out and about without her wedding ring when she attended the Golden Globes, rumours were abound that she and her husband Marc Anthony were headed for divorce. However, Jennifer has quashed those rumours claiming that her decision to appear in public without her ring was simply a fashion statement.

Jennifer said in an interview to ‘In Touch’, a US magazine:

Every time I’m not wearing my ring, people think I’m getting divorced. Divorce is not, and never was, an option.

Jennifer’s husband Marc Anthony has also been seen without his wedding ring, and rumours are flying around that he has been flirting with women and complaining about his celebrity diva wife.

Marc Anthony is J.Lo’s third marriage. Her first marriage lasted more than ten years when she split from Ojani Noa in 1998. Her second marriage was a much shorter affair, a ten month marriage to Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs that ended in 2002.

Marco Pierre White is one of the world’s top chefs, and the star of many TV programs. He currently in the middle of divorce proceedings from his wife, Mati White, who has become penniless as a result of the divorce. Mati White has just handed her £250,000 diamond ring to cover the costs of her divorce lawyers after she amassed almost £1 million in solicitor’s bills.

Mati and Marco have three children together, and Mati has even had to increase her overdraft to cover her legal costs. When her overdraft proved insufficient to cover the legal costs she was forced to give up her diamond ring as collateral for her costs.

Marco is thought to have branded the taking of the ring by Mati’s divorce lawyers as disgusting, saying they should never have taken her diamond ring from her as payment for their services.

A source close to Mati White claims that she has refused a divorce settlement from Marco.

Mati is in a terrible state, she is a broken woman.

She has spent every penny she had on her solicitors. She had to go to the bank and extend her overdraft and now that money has all gone.

She doesn’t have a penny and the only thing she could do was hand over one of her most valuable rings in order to cover her legal bills. She had it valued and it’s worth a huge amount of money.

Her solicitor, Marcus Dearle, took the ring from her and Mati has had to sign a document saying that she will pay Withers in full – and if that means having to sell her jewellery so be it. Marco is furious.

The couple had been married for 16 years and both are believed to have racked up six figure divorce costs already.

Many women who divorce their husbands suspect that they’re actually divorcing the antichrist, but Josefina de Jesus Torres’ divorce from her husband Jose Luis de Jesus Miranda is a little different. Josefina’s husband De Jesus actually claims he IS the antichrist.

Furthermore, De Jesus has tried to claim that his assets and his business are in fact religious ‘non-profit’ assets, and as such shouldn’t be considered in the divorce when dividing up assets for the couple’s financial settlement. However, a judge has ruled that the church property and his business should be considered, and De Jesus should pay his wife $2.2 million in their divorce.

Josefina’s divorce lawyer successfully argued that the $2.2 million represented half of the value of the assets and the churches that her husband owned.

Norman Segall, the divorce lawyer for Josefina, stated:

I think the judge did what was right and awarded Josefina what she was entitled to under the law. The church has millions of dollars … and I’m sure if De Jesus issues an edict from up above that he needs money, it’s available to resolve the situation.

Josefina’s husband, De Jesus, wasn’t in court when the divorce proceedings were first heard because he had fled after being found in contempt of court and ordered to surrender himself after failing to pay his wife the $15,000 per month that she had been awarded.