Ex-wife gets £53m in divorce ruling

Broken wedding cake decorationA former wife has been awarded a divorce settlement of more than £53 million against her businessman husband by a High Court judge.

The award to the 48-year-old woman, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, includes a lump sum of £38 million.
Details of the case have been made public in an anonymised judgment given today by Mrs Justice Eleanor King in London.

The case involves a Russian husband and wife who have lived in England since 2005 and have two children together.

They lived a "lavish lifestyle" and their family home in central London was bought for £3.825 million.
The couple married in 1991, but she divorced him in Russia in 2009 after 17 years of marriage.

They met in 1987 in the factory where they both worked. The husband was a telephone technician and the wife worked in the cultural department.

The woman sought orders at the High Court relating to a number of properties and also to a lump sum, which the judge said the ex-wife "will attempt to enforce in other jurisdictions".

Announcing her decision, the judge said: "The case has been a fantastic charade with the husband a shady puppet master in the background.

"At fabulous cost - £1.4 million and counting - those representing the wife have crossed and re-crossed the globe in an attempt to trace the husband's assets, every penny of which has been acquired during the course of the marriage."

The woman's application at the High Court was for an order for "financial relief" under the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 following her divorce.

The judge said the QC representing the wife during the hearing earlier this year had put the assets in the case - "at least those assets his legal team have been able to trace in the absence of any proper disclosure by the husband" - at about £107 million.

Of that figure some £91.6 million is represented by 11 commercial properties in Russia, with the remainder of the "identified wealth" being held in eight English properties worth together about £14, 002,337.

The judge ruled: "The husband was the wealth creator, the wife the homemaker. Each contributed fully to the marriage.

"I am satisfied that all the family's wealth was created during the course of the marriage."

She said: "The starting point must be that the assets are shared equally. The husband has failed, whether in writing or by attending court, to make any submissions to the contrary.

"The wife does not seek an order in excess of 50% of the known assets to reflect the overwhelming likelihood that even yet the court does not know the full extent of the husband's wealth."

Mrs Justice King said her decision would give the wife £53,531,168 , but added that this was "before what I very much fear will be the very substantial costs of enforcement".

She referred to the "formidable challenges for the wife in enforcing the lump sum order".

The judge said: "In my judgment this is a case where, notwithstanding the formidable challenges for the wife in enforcing a lump sum order, it would be iniquitous if the husband was permitted, by virtue of his appalling litigation misconduct, to drive the court into an order which is substantially less than that which by virtue of the sharing principle, she would otherwise receive."

She was satisfied that the 49-year-old husband had at all times been completely in touch with the progress of the litigation "whilst playing no active part in it".

The judge said: "Whilst the husband has failed at every step of the way to provide any honest disclosure or to engage in the proceedings he has equally, at every step of the way, indulged in satellite litigation which has achieved nothing other than to be costly and distressing to the wife."

She said: "In the present case the wife has received no provision from a Russian court. It is accepted that the only provision that this wife, who has made her permanent home in this country, will receive is that made pursuant to an order of this court."

The judge also made orders for child maintenance at the rate of £20,000 a year per child "until each completes full-time tertiary education and make provision for school fees and university costs limited to first degree".

The vital lessons of celebrity divorce
See Gallery
Ex-wife gets £53m in divorce ruling

Rupert and Anna Murdoch: $1.7billion (£901m)

Australian Murdoch and his former wife were married for 32 years and had three children together, before splitting in 1999. Around $1.7 billion of Murdoch's fortune went to Anna.

"The divorce rate is rising rapidly among the over-60s - up 58% in 2012 compared with 2011," explains Stowe. "According to reports at the time, Anna wanted her media tycoon husband to slow down – but like many people these days, Rupert didn't want to approach his sunset years sitting in an armchair. Over 60s want to enjoy themselves, making the most of what time they have left by doing what they love best."

Mel and Robyn Gibson: $425million (£273m)

Mel Gibson's 31-year marriage to Robyn felt apart when his mistress and soon-to-be second wife Oksana Grigorieva's pregnancy was made public. Robyn was entitled to half of his assets under California state law and the Lethal Weapon actor reportedly handed her half of his estimated $850 million fortune.

"Robyn's sizeable settlement included 50% of her movie star husband's pension rights," explains Stowe. "My male clients are often displeased to discover that financial negotiations extend to their pensions. They are also shocked to discover that, if the wife is younger than the husband, her claim to a share of the pension can potentially be greater than his because her life expectancy may be greater than his."

Roman and Irina Abramovich: $300 million (£193m)

Roman Abramovich reportedly finally agreed to divorce wife Irina when she could no longer put up with his roguish ways and he refused to give up his mistress. The £150 million payout could have been a lot more painful for the Chelsea FC owner - Irina sought 50% of his $12.1 billion fortune, which if successful would have been the largest divorce settlement of all time by a count of six.

"Most couples, whether or not they are in the public eye, prefer to avoid court and maintain their privacy," says Stowe. "Moreover court proceedings, which pit one party against the other in an adversarial environment, can be unpleasant and stressful. Although $300 million sounds like a lot, Irina Abramovich could have fought for a far greater share of the couple's fortune. By agreeing to settle for less, she was able to avoid an acrimonious court case – and all the public scrutiny that would have come with it."

Tiger Woods and Elin Nordegren: $110million (£70m)

Shamed by the sex scandal that wrecked their marriage, Swedish Nordgren got a reported $110 million settlement from her cheating ex, golf star Tiger Woods. When Nordegren finally ended nine months of silence over her heartbreak in August 2010, she said she "felt stupid" that Woods cheated on her with a parade of party girls and porn stars, and noted: "Money can't buy happiness. Or put my family back together."

"When the rich and famous divorce, the public want details: the juicier, the better," says Stowe. "However it is easy to get carried away by the sums and forget that, even for the most privileged among us, money is no balm for heartbreak."

Steven Spielberg and Amy Irving: $100million (£60m)

The couple, who first met when Irving tried out for the lead role in 1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, went onto marry in 1985. According to Celebritynetworth.com, when they divorced in 1989, Irving claimed their prenup was invalid because it was written on a napkin without any lawyers present. She successfully won a $100 million settlement.

"Don't assume that a prenuptial agreement isn't worth the paper it is written on: in England and Wales, pre-nups will certainly be considered by the court but are not yet automatically binding, " explains Stowe. "However a prenup is more likely to be upheld if it is consensual and voluntary, not signed in haste, not clearly out of date (providing for future children, for example), preferably including a review after a period of time, and properly drafted with full disclosure."

Madonna and Guy Ritchie: $76m-$92million (£48m-£59m)

When Madonna divorced director Guy Ritchie in 2008 after eight years of marriage, Ritchie was said to have walked away with between $76 to $92 million - almost a fifth of the singer's estimated $500 million net worth, plus a country house and a London pub.

"The settlement rumoured to have been received by Ritchie is thought to have been the largest divorce settlement ever paid to a man, showing that in 2013, it isn't always the wives who get the divorce settlements," explains Stowe. "In recent years I have encountered a number of successful female breadwinners who were bewildered to discover what they faced to lose if they divorced."

Sir Paul McCartney's and Heather Mills: estimated at $48.6million (£28million)

Following their divorce in 2006 Heather Mills was awarded £24.3m in the settlement decided by a court judge. According to the BBC, McCartney paid his estranged wife a £16.5m lump sum, including £2.5m to buy a London property, in addition to £7.8m assets and £35,000 a year for their daughter Beatrice. The settlement was blow for Mills who had sought some £125m of the former Beatle's £400m fortune.

"The demolition of family law legal aid, which provided help with legal costs, has led to a boom in people representing themselves in court," explains Stowe. "Heather Mills represented herself in the High Court – and discovered for herself the disadvantages of doing so.

"In the courtroom, there are no prisoners taken. You may think you are saving money by representing yourself or opting for a cheap DIY divorce online – but such decisions can turn out to be expensive in the long run if you settle for less than you are worth. "

Donald Trump and Ivana Trump; $25 million (£16m)

The Trumps 15-year marriage came to an end in 1992, with Ivana taking $25million in an out-of-court settlement, plus several properties. The couple's old Mercedes proved a major sticking point, which Ivana – who claimed Donald had given it to her as a gift – eventually won.

"I have often observed that clients who are knowledgeable and well-prepared, with a realistic outlook, are better equipped to cope with proceedings and move on with their lives afterwards," explains Stowe. "Ivana Trump has a refreshing attitude and since divorcing has gone on to enjoy considerable success of her own as a real estate developer and as the founder of Ivana Haute Couture, which sells her signature products, fragrances and accessories."

Lionel Richie and Diane Richie; estimated at $20 million (£12m)

Richie married Diane in 1995 and the couple had two children, before their marriage broke down in 2004. The Richie's became tabloid favourites, reports Forbes magazine, as Diane detailed their lavish lifestyle in her alimony petition. Among her claims: a monthly clothing allowance of $15,000; $50,000 a month for manicures, massages and other personal services; and a plastic surgery budget of $20,000 a year.

"Richie rubbished Diane's demand as "a lawyer giving some advice that's completely absurd", and insisted that despite the headlines, the couple still had a "great time" together," explains Stowe. "Perhaps he was right: the couple have remained on good terms and were spotted shoe-shopping together in 2011. It is difficult for a divorcing couple to stay friends, irrespective of the settlement size, but it can be done."

Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall; estimated between $15 and $25 million (£9.6m-£16m)

After nine years of marriage, Mick Jagger and Jerry Hall divorced with a $25 million settlement. According to Celebritynetworth.com, Jagger attempted to get out of any payment by claiming they had never really been married because their Balinese Hindu wedding ceremony was not legally binding.

"Their ceremony was invalid because under Balinese law, only Muslim marriages can be validly conducted," explains Stowe. "When a couple's marriage is not valid according to English law, it is still possible for one spouse to obtain a financial settlement – but only if the Petitioner spouse thought he or she had actually gone through a lawful marriage ceremony and acted as married thereafter. If you plan to marry overseas, however, do avoid Jerry Hall's plight by double-checking the law before you leave."


More stories
Read Full Story