Judge tells millionaire's ex-wife to get a job

The ex-wife of a millionaire racehorse surgeon has been told by a judge that she has "no right to be supported for life" and should go and get a job.

Tracey and Ian Wright were divorced in 2008 after 11 years of marriage. Mrs Wright, a 51-year-old former riding instructor, didn't go back to work but instead stayed at home with her two children, the younger of whom was just three.

The couple's £1.3 million, seven-bedroom home in Suffolk was sold, with Mrs Wright ending up with a £450,000 mortgage-free house in Wickhambrook, Newmarket, with stabling for her horse and her daughters' ponies.

Mr Wright, 59, was also ordered to pay £75,000 a year in maintenance and school fees, including £33,200 a year for Mrs Wright's own maintenance.

However, last year he went to court to ask for his payments to be cut, saying that it was unfair to expect him to support his ex-wife indefinitely when she made no attempt to seek work.

And Judge Lynn Roberts agreed, commenting: "Mrs Wright has made no effort whatsoever to seek work or to update her skills... I am satisfied that she has worked on the basis... that she would be supported for life."

Mrs Wright appealed, with her lawyer arguing that even though the couple's elder daughter was away at boarding school for much of the year, caring for the ten-year-old would be a big restriction on her earning capacity. It would cause "a plummeting in the [child's] standard of living," Mark Johnston said.

But Lord Justice Pitchford has dismissed the appeal, saying it was time Mrs Wright got a job.

"There is a general expectation that, once children are in Year 2, mothers can begin part-time work and make a financial contribution," he said.

"The order was never intended to provide the wife with an income for life. The onus will now be on her."

While the legal wrangling means this has become a high-profile case, it's not unusual for maintenance orders to be changed after time. The courts are required to try and minimise the time for which one partner's financially dependent on the other, and also to consider "reasonable need".

"In this case, the couple were married for 11 years and therefore it was a medium term marriage, there had been a passage of time since the original order. It was not a long term marriage where the wife had long ceased working," comments Marilyn Stowe of Stowe Family Law in her blog.

"Prior to their marriage, Mrs Wright was a riding instructor and legal secretary. She clearly has an earning capacity and her ability to earn will not be hindered by child care."

Read more on AOL Money:
Divorce settlement of almost $1bn rejected

Pension mistakes women make in divorce costs thousands

Jamie Cooper-Hohn wins £337m in High Court divorce case