Ex-wife seeks to stop husband spending fortune

Divorce | 2 Mar 2016 3

The ex-wife of a property mogul has launched a legal bid to prevent him “frittering away” the couple’s £18 million fortune.

In December, she successfully applied to the High Court for a temporary asset freezing injunction to prevent her ex-husband selling off his student housing businesses which he has built up across the East Midlands. Now, she seeks to make this injunction permanent.

The couple had lived an “opulent” life outside Nottingham in a £2 million home, the Court heard, but their relationship did not last. They divorced in an Israeli Rabbinical court but before they separated they signed a ‘divorce agreement’ which stated that their assets would be divided equally between them.

At the High Court, her legal representative said she was worried that her former husband would treat the couple’s assets like “his own personal wallet” and buy things such as “convertible Bentleys, penthouses and the like”. They claimed he would take money out of his companies “in a completely uncontrolled and untransparent manner” in order to reduce the amount of money she would eventually receive in their divorce settlement.

The husband denied the allegations, claiming that money had been moved into “speculative, high risk investments” which had left “a diminished pot of assets”. He insisted that the companies which had been valued at over £13 million back in 2013 were now worth significantly less. The husband is simply trying to keep his businesses running and was not trying to cheat his ex-wife out of anything, his counsel told the court.

The case is ongoing.

The blog team at Stowe is a group of writers who share their advice on the wellbeing and emotional aspects of divorce or separation from personal experience. Guest contributors also regularly contribute to share their knowledge.

Share This Post...

Get in touch
Request Free Call Back

We remain open for business during the COVID-19 outbreak. Submit your details below, and we’ll arrange a free, no-obligation call back at a time to suit you. To ensure we are the right fit, we need to make you aware that we cannot offer Legal aid.

Comments(3)

  1. Raymond says:

    I am all for a fair and just settlement, because I have been on the “receiving” end of one that — to those who know the whole situation (and the judge certainly did not) — is patently unfair. With that as the background, in this case I rather straddle the two positions, myself…. and, without know the full details, I tend to come to a conclusion (or suggestion) that, on the face of it, is in his favor….

    Because, it seems to me that if the guy is going to lose a whole lot of money, he might as well invest in some very risky, but potentially lucrative business — and if he makes a killing, he can pay off his spouse out of what he made. On the other hand, if he loses, he wouldn’t have the money to pay her off, anyway. Unfair? It seems it was his money anyhow.

    It is not stated how long they were married, but frankly, the whole idea of a wife getting HALF of her husband’s assets when they divorce, JUST because they were married for a few years, is totally STUPID, it seems to me. If they were married for 20 years, and she stopped working to look after the kids, yes, I can see it makes reasonable sense. But if it is only a few years, and she did not have to stop working as they had no kids, and she is just soaking him because he was rich BEFORE they married — which she may not have contributed much or indeed anything additional to — then it is totally STUPID to “start off with the idea of a 50/50 split”! That is totally WRONG — as it almost inevitably ALWAYS favors the woman, regardless.

    If the situation were reversed, and she had the “pot of gold” — would the court award HIM a full half share of it? I very much doubt it! In my view, and I am sure many men who have been “abused” and exploited by greedy wives, the whole “justice” system is often out of kilter with natural justice. And it is high time it was reformed.

  2. Andy says:

    I support 100% the comments made by “Raymond”.
    Typical Gold diggers who expect everything and leave the actual earner with nothing.So spend it..as stated prior if she had all the pot and he had little then you would think this would be the case but not so..the court would just award the same amount to the female and not the male..Surely time has come to demand equal quality as the gold digger would do..

    In this case is a prime example of the court systems Currently out of touch and for once where is the support for men who have been stripped of all financial gain with the quality of their life shatters by a simple decision by a judge.
    Hi time men all shouted to make a point of this instead of trampled down by the system and driven to poverty by all agencies as the system takes and assesses payments to ex partners…
    Come on you lot fight for your justice what can the law actually do…after a time,nothing…It’s a joke.
    Thing is it took 20 minutes to get married, now it takes a life time to get rid…

  3. Luke says:

    ===
    If the situation were reversed, and she had the “pot of gold” — would the court award HIM a full half share of it? I very much doubt it!
    ===
    .
    I doubt it too – but of course it would be just as wrong if it did happen – evening up the craziness is not the answer.
    .
    .
    ===
    “Thing is it took 20 minutes to get married, now it takes a life time to get rid…”
    ===
    .
    Yup…

Leave a Reply

Close

Newsletter Sign Up

For all the latest news from Stowe Family law
please sign up for instant access today.



Privacy Policy