Monthly Archives: July 2010

Estranged wife seeks $35m in McCartney-Mills-style divorce battle

on by
McCartney-Mills-style divorce

McCartney-Mills-style divorce

She was married to a man worth more than $260 million, lived a luxurious life and wanted for nothing – but it all came to an end when they split. 

Now she is seeking a $35 million settlement, arguing she is entitled to maintain and enjoy the lifestyle to which she became accustomed during the marriage.

When the case went to the Family Court, comparisons were drawn to Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, whose bitter and very public divorce ended with a court ordering the former Beatle to pay his former wife £24.3 million ($43 million).

Like McCartney, the husband in the current case had already made his considerable fortune when he married the younger divorcee of modest means.

The pair, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had signed a pre-nuptial financial agreement in case their marriage broke down, but it was set aside by a Family Court judge last year.

There is a significant dispute about how much the wife is entitled to; the husband argues it is nowhere near $35 million.

She wants a court order for comprehensive disclosure so his financial position can be determined. He says his assets took a hit during the global financial crisis, but she may ask for a larger settlement if he turns out to be even wealthier than she thought.

In an affidavit to the court, the wife said she had made significant contributions to the marriage and welfare of the family.

She was the primary carer of their own children and also raised her husband’s ”extremely disturbed and very needy” children from an earlier marriage, enduring attacks and vilification from his former wife.

Her own ambitions took a back seat as she assisted her husband’s business, social interests and career development, and she ”instructed, supervised and managed various paid staff” while handling their domestic affairs.

The woman described her lifestyle during the marriage as ”luxurious and wanting for nothing”, Justice Paul Cronin said. ”That lifestyle came to an end and she had to significantly curb her spending subsequent to the conclusion of the relationship. On the other hand, she said, the husband’s lifestyle had not changed.”

While the husband said he could meet whatever settlement was ordered, he objected to spending time, energy and money on the complex exercise of establishing his precise wealth.

Justice Cronin said the valuation exercise would be expensive but it was all relative. When it came from an asset pool conservatively valued at more than $260 million, ”$100,000 or thereabouts is not significant”, he said.

The wife and the court needed to know the husband’s financial position to determine a just and equitable outcome, Justice Cronin said.

”The husband therefore ought to provide sufficient detail to enable the wife to understand how he calculates his [position],” he said.

One in ten couples putting pre-nups before love

on by

binding financial agreementCOUPLES are putting prudence before passion, with up to one in 10 now locking their wealth away from loved ones with a pre-nuptial agreement.

Ten years after pre-nups became legally enforceable, couples are moving in together or walking down the aisle older than ever and have more to lose in a bitter split, according to family law expert Michael Taussig QC.

“There used to be trickle of couples drawing up pre-nuptial agreements. That has become a steady stream,” Mr Taussig said yesterday.

He estimated that before they became law in December 2000, pre-nups might have been used by .05 per cent of couples. That figure could now be as high as 10 per cent.

Exact numbers are impossible to ascertain as the agreements, known legally as Binding Financial Arrangements, do not have to be registered with the Family Court.

But the court is increasingly being asked to act as referee by couples who wish they had never signed pre-nups and want to wriggle out of them.

At the same time, the cost of divorce is going through the roof, with millions of dollars at stake.

This week, the ex-wife embroiled in what has been labelled the country’s most expensive divorce sued her lawyers, claiming they had ripped her off.

Her legal costs so far are $10.5 million and her husband, who runs a gambling empire which he admits nets him $300,000 a week, has allegedly paid $26 million to his own legal team.

Multi-million dollar divorces were now becoming more common, Mr Taussig said.

“We are talking about huge numbers,” he said. “I remember in my younger days as a lawyer if you hit an asset pool of $1 million, you thought that you had a humungous case.

“The value of the dollar is getting less and with the price of real estate what it is, there is a significant accumulation of wealth in Australia.”

– Divorce costs have been going through the roof- 10th anniversary of legal pre-nups laws – One in ten couples now using them pre-nups

An everyday bride and groom, or de facto couple, can expect to pay about $1500 for a legally-binding pre-nup listing the assets they bring to the relationship – and intend to take out of it.

But the cost can rise up to $30,000 or more, as some couples have homes across the world, including in the UK which does not recognise pre-nuptial agreements.