- Wealthy husband spent thousands on sex as his marriage fell apart, court told
- By Mark Dunn
- Herald Sun
- 30/07/2013 Make a Comment (1)
- Contributed by: Twinkletoes ( 8 articles in 2013 )
A WOMAN claimed her former husband spent more than $40,000 on "sugar-daddy" liaisons, prostitutes, dating agencies and pornography in the period around their divorce.
The couple, both in their 30s, were married for five years, had no children and lived a professional life here and overseas, sharing a $1.2 million home and with the man earning incomes of up to $877,000 a year.
But their relationship ended several years ago and the Federal Circuit Court has heard the husband may have spent $43,000 on affairs, dating and sexual website services as the marriage dissolved.
The wife sought title to the couple's home and the husband sought the sale value of the property. The woman said the husband's spending threatened a fair split of assets.
"It is the wife's case that towards the end of the relationship, and then immediately after separation, the husband wasted significant joint funds on expenses such as online pornography, prostitutes and mistresses," Judge Tom Altobelli said.
"She asserts that these expenses include travel and accommodation, online debts to pornographic websites and membership fees to dating agencies and sugar daddy organisations.
"The husband does not deny the conduct.
"The wife's case, in effect, is that the money expended is property of the husband and wife and used for the benefit of the husband only, and that if he had not spent it, it would otherwise have been available for distribution between the husband and wife.
"It was not contended by the husband, nor could it be reasonably so contended, that the expenditure was for his reasonable necessary living expenses," Judge Altobelli said.
He said the expenses should be factored into their asset split.
Judge Altobelli noted the "intensity" in which the matter was litigated.
"Each party made criticisms of how each other behaved and conducted themselves after separation and during the course of these proceedings.
"Much of the evidence in this regard is irrelevant and did not assist the court."
But the magistrate, while agreeing it was not for the courts to "audit" the marriage or appropriateness of expenditure, found the husband's spending was "reckless, negligent or wanton".
Based on contributions, the magistrate ordered the couples' home sold and major assets split 27.5 per cent to the woman and the remainder to her former husband.
The couple, both in their 30s, were married for five years, had no children and lived a professional life here and overseas, sharing a $1.2 million home and with the man earning incomes of up to $877,000 a year.
But their relationship ended several years ago and the Federal Circuit Court has heard the husband may have spent $43,000 on affairs, dating and sexual website services as the marriage dissolved.
The wife sought title to the couple's home and the husband sought the sale value of the property. The woman said the husband's spending threatened a fair split of assets.
"It is the wife's case that towards the end of the relationship, and then immediately after separation, the husband wasted significant joint funds on expenses such as online pornography, prostitutes and mistresses," Judge Tom Altobelli said.
"She asserts that these expenses include travel and accommodation, online debts to pornographic websites and membership fees to dating agencies and sugar daddy organisations.
"The husband does not deny the conduct.
"The wife's case, in effect, is that the money expended is property of the husband and wife and used for the benefit of the husband only, and that if he had not spent it, it would otherwise have been available for distribution between the husband and wife.
"It was not contended by the husband, nor could it be reasonably so contended, that the expenditure was for his reasonable necessary living expenses," Judge Altobelli said.
He said the expenses should be factored into their asset split.
Judge Altobelli noted the "intensity" in which the matter was litigated.
"Each party made criticisms of how each other behaved and conducted themselves after separation and during the course of these proceedings.
"Much of the evidence in this regard is irrelevant and did not assist the court."
But the magistrate, while agreeing it was not for the courts to "audit" the marriage or appropriateness of expenditure, found the husband's spending was "reckless, negligent or wanton".
Based on contributions, the magistrate ordered the couples' home sold and major assets split 27.5 per cent to the woman and the remainder to her former husband.
Source: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/wealthy-husband-spent-thousands-on-sex-as-his-marriage-fell-apart-court-told/story-fni0fee2-1226687787170
Is it just merely to feed the public a scrawny Family Court bone?
Is it to show how hard done the woman is today in the Family Court getting only a 27.5% share? Or to show the men, look the Family Court is fair and ok, don't be afraid, look forward to seeing you men soon?
Is it simply a sensationalist article like most news items these days using the sex, porno angle to put down men?
$43k of expenses compared with $800k+ is only one twentieth. Compared with other people's habits of wasting money like on pointless shopping, drugs or gambling etc, what's the fuss?
What's the big deal if the man goes and seeks some intimate satisfaction close to divorce time? If it didn't happen during the r'ship does it really matter? Maybe the husband is in grief and mourning at the loss of his wife which can be a very difficult time. MAybe there was no intimacy in the relationship and the man couldn't wait any longer for the divorce to be finalised to get some lovin.
I wish these stories would go a bit deeper instead of the superficial tones.
Plus, how did this article get approved to be reported on, especially when there are more important cases that the public should be made aware of in that dreaded place called the Family Court of Australia.
So is the moral of the story when men have high incomes and there are no kids, the man is victorious and gets the lion's share of the asset pool, yet when there are kids the woman comes out smelling roses?
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