I hope that Mark Keena (above) is right. I can see that as a result of this ruling, my ex husband ia already beginning to let hus debts pile up. This ruling is not only absurd, but cruel. I divorced so that I could move on and give my children a better life. My ex husband did well out of the settlement, but now it seems that he can also use my share of the very small assets that we divided too. I hope that this ruling is challenged and overturned soon, and that common sense will prevail. Otherwise, what is the point of divorce,if one is still tied to and working to support an ex husband in this way.

Hughes, Herts,

One of the reasons I divorced my ex was because of his financial irresponsibility - he became unemployed and decided to spend time travelling and spending money rather than looking for work, often with women he had met on the internet ! ! thus getting into considerable debt. I have spent the last 3 years back and forth to court with expensive legal costs, not to mention the stress and emotional drain incurred and am now being told that this could be a waste of time and I may have to pay for my ex husbands debts - I'm sorry - this is absurd !

Diane, Lincoln, UK

What about the effect of this ruling on the stability of raising children? Apart from not having any/litte assets left to move on with their residing parent, for 5 years their newly established life could be torn apart over night - in fact they could be made homeless in the first place because there might be nothing left to move on with.
Is that what we call the circumspect ruling of a judge in a civilised society where humanity towards the most vulnerable should be paramount? There will be many wives and some husbands out there who are trying to make a difficult marriage work for the sake of the children and family in general just to be catapulted into the gutter
to feed the golden calf should it come to a divorce. And the homeless children will have to be picked up by the taxpayer with their broken hearts and souls as our future adults - incurred in childhood. A divorce is already a very traumatising experience. This ruling adds insult to injury . Shame on Judge Pelling!!

Anna B., Tunbridge Wells, Kent

This is not as clear as it might seem. The trustees can only win if they can show that the order was made because a party was reasonably likely to be bankrupt at some time in the future. The judge in the first case made the order because he was at risk of bancruptcy.

If an order is made and at the time there was no prospect of bancruptcy but then later a party becomes insolvent, the trustees would not be able to go against an order as it was not made to avoid the assets being avaliable to the trustees. I hope that makes sense.

Mark Keenan, Swindon, England

Another nail in the coffin for marriage.

Melanie Archer, WImbledon, UK

I note that the ruling deals with 'Contested' divorces, what about non contested divorces?

John Tustin, Redditch, England

I wonder what happens if you get divorced, the ex then goes on a spending spree and then goes bust ? This judgement seems fair enough about debts incurred during the marriage, but will it apply to debts after/independent of the marriage ?

Financial irresponsibility can be a factor in the divorce in the first place. Is it fair for you to continue to be responsible for a profligate ex after divorce - where it has probably already cost you a lot to repay the debts that they ran up while you were married?

alain, watford, uk

this ruling is definately not a good idea. i do think a clean break financial settlement should be promoted rather than exposing the other spouse to this kind of "frustration" and "uncertainties". if a couple is in the stage of getting a divorce, except in the case of custody of children, everything should be divided properly to avoid future "contact"

vic, nottingham, nottinghamshire

Unless there is convincing evidence that the divorce took place in order to protect the assets from creditors, this is an outrageous case. Are we to continue to make retrospective changes in the law? Britain - the place where pre-nup contracts are unreliable, where 'anonymous' sperm donor cntracts are unreliable, and donors find themselves named later, and now this - divorce settlement contracts torn up by a judge. "A man's word is his bond." Not in the UK. Not even his boind either, anymore, it seems.

Nick, Rotherham, UK

Shouldn't it depend on when (and how) the debts were incurred? If before the divorce, then perhaps both partners were equally extravagant, but if afterwards (as in the case of a friend of mine whose husband started a spending marathon with various girlfriends as the lawyers worked their way slowly through the case) then the resonsibility is surely not equal?

jane, faro, portugal

Good! In a marriage you both contribute and on divorce split everything 50:50 as should debts. I'm sure some will think twice before trying to jump a sinking ship and perhaps wrk harder at their relationship.

John, Hertfordshire,

In a word - Unbelievable

PB, YORK,

If two people spilt assets in a divorce in good faith, then holding a divorcee responsible for his/her ex seems unfair.

While the case cited in the story lends itself to supporting the ruling, there are likely many people who will be affected through little fault of their own.

That being said, I actually do not know what the law is in my state - US divorce and bankruptcy laws vary from state to state) .

Tom Canick, Rockville, Maryland USA

Does this ruling aplly to uncontested divorces?

John Tustin, Redditch, England

"With all my wordly goods I thee endow."

Edmund Burke, Kingston upon Thames, England

Its no wonder couples are thinking twice about getting married every month or so the rules change if the government want family life they need to look at the possible fallout after all there is enough pressure to keep family life ticking along nicely without added concern in case it goes pearshape .

nigel, ryde,

a very interesting decision ???
if the couple stay married the creditors cannot seize the partners assets but can if they divorce ??
seems a bit topsy turvy ??
it seems the judge could not see the wider implications where a court order is not acourt order

paul harris, london, uk

How about it being fair to the spouse to which it effects? Moreover perhaps it is a poorly adopted concept in the US? How can it be fair and equitable that one spouse should live in fear for a period of upto 5 years following an order from the courts on divorce that should their former spouse be declared bankrupt the agreement reached as to finances can, conceivably, be undone by a trustee in bankruptcy.

Bob , London , England

We have had this reaching concept in the US for years, it is only fair to the creditor.

KMW, Miami, Florida, USA