- Husband's court bid fails to offset split's financial blow
- By Fiona Hudson
- Herald Sun
- 07/02/2009 Make a Comment
- Contributed by: JohnnyBgood ( 6 articles in 2009 )
A WOMAN who left her wealthy husband stalled the sale of their mansion until she could recover belongings including a Bamix blender, raincoat, and tennis racquet from inside, a court has heard.
She obtained a court order, before the global financial crisis struck, to stop her husband selling off assets while they settled their bitter split.
The Family Court heard she wouldn't lift the order even as the value of their share portfolio dived.
She also stymied the potential sale of their $1.45 million mansion, the court heard, potentially causing further financial loss.
The husband, a wealthy Melbourne businessman, tried to reduce her divorce settlement because she'd stopped him selling shares before the market meltdown.
His lawyers argued her actions wiped up to 10 per cent off their joint $9 million fortune.
The court heard the fortune included two houses, a large portfolio of bank and other shares, and millions of dollars in superannuation.
The couple, both in their early 60s, cannot be identified for legal reasons.
The man learnt his wife had left him while he was overseas for work in 2007, the court heard. He returned home hurriedly after checking his bank accounts online and noticing large, unexpected withdrawals.
His wife obtained the court order restraining him from dealing shares in 2007, while they carved up their assets.
The court heard their bank shares, worth $1.98 million
in June 2007, were worth $1.1 million by September 2008, and then fell even further.
The man's lawyers argued the ex-wife should carry the full brunt of the 10 per cent slide in their fortune.
But in a ruling handed down this week, Justice Paul Cronin found the couple should split their assets 50-50.
He found there was no evidence that the husband could have prevented the financial losses even if he'd been able to sell the shares.
"In the circumstances, I find it would not be fair and reasonable to make a specific adjustment in favour of the husband in respect of the wife's approach to refusing to lift the injunctive orders," he said.
The judge said it was clear the wife did not expect such a rapid market deterioration.
"I do not find that there was any obstructive, imprudent or deliberately destructive behaviour to adversely affect the parties' wealth," he said.
She obtained a court order, before the global financial crisis struck, to stop her husband selling off assets while they settled their bitter split.
The Family Court heard she wouldn't lift the order even as the value of their share portfolio dived.
She also stymied the potential sale of their $1.45 million mansion, the court heard, potentially causing further financial loss.
The husband, a wealthy Melbourne businessman, tried to reduce her divorce settlement because she'd stopped him selling shares before the market meltdown.
His lawyers argued her actions wiped up to 10 per cent off their joint $9 million fortune.
The court heard the fortune included two houses, a large portfolio of bank and other shares, and millions of dollars in superannuation.
The couple, both in their early 60s, cannot be identified for legal reasons.
The man learnt his wife had left him while he was overseas for work in 2007, the court heard. He returned home hurriedly after checking his bank accounts online and noticing large, unexpected withdrawals.
His wife obtained the court order restraining him from dealing shares in 2007, while they carved up their assets.
The court heard their bank shares, worth $1.98 million
in June 2007, were worth $1.1 million by September 2008, and then fell even further.
The man's lawyers argued the ex-wife should carry the full brunt of the 10 per cent slide in their fortune.
But in a ruling handed down this week, Justice Paul Cronin found the couple should split their assets 50-50.
He found there was no evidence that the husband could have prevented the financial losses even if he'd been able to sell the shares.
"In the circumstances, I find it would not be fair and reasonable to make a specific adjustment in favour of the husband in respect of the wife's approach to refusing to lift the injunctive orders," he said.
The judge said it was clear the wife did not expect such a rapid market deterioration.
"I do not find that there was any obstructive, imprudent or deliberately destructive behaviour to adversely affect the parties' wealth," he said.
Source: https://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25018714-661,00.html
1Will not be visible to public.
2Receive notification of other comments posted for this article. To cease notification after having posted click here.
3To make a link clickable in the comments box enclose in link tags - ie.<link>Link</link>.
4To show an image enclose the image URL in tags - ie.. Note: image may be resized if too large
To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here
To contribute a news article Click Here
To view or contribute a Quote Click Here