Greasy Pig
Master Don Juan
This article appeared in an Australian newspaper. What do you think of the judge's reasoning behind this?
He says that the man was only able to earn as much money as he did because his estranged wife was looking after the kids by herself without him.
Therefore, she is entitled to a share of his post-separation windfall. WTF????
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...l&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=76222527
AN Australian housewife has won the lion's share of a multi-million-dollar fortune in a divorce case set to shine the light on post-separation contributions to a property pool.
In an extraordinary decision, the mother-of-three has been awarded more than $2 million, including a share of post-separation funds, despite a legal finding she made no contribution to her ex-husband's earning capacity after the split.
The ruling by Federal Circuit Court Judge Tom Altobelli gives her a 70 per cent share of the property pool before the separation and 25 per cent of more than $1 million in assets her ex-husband acquired after taking a lucrative overseas job after they separated in 2010.
"It was the husband's earning capacity that created the post-separation wealth,'' Judge Altobelli said. "His earning capacity, however, is not an asset to which she has contributed.
"An interesting feature of this case is that about one-third of the assets available to (the warring couple) for distribution were accumulated by the husband alone, in a relatively short period after separation when he was able to take advantage of lucrative tax-free employment in (another country).
"By any definition, the husband enjoyed a comfortable, if not luxurious lifestyle (overseas). He earned so much that he was able to accumulate about $1 million in assets. His employment benefits included not just a tax-free income, but allowances for club memberships, motor vehicles, accommodation, travel and even a mobile telephone. By contrast ... the wife was responsible for the care of the children.''
Judge Altobelli said his decision to give the ex-wife 25 per cent of the post-separation property pool was recognition that the ex-husband was "at least in part'' only able to make a greater financial contribution because he was "freed of the caring responsibilities'' of their children.
According to the judgment, the couple were married in 1991 and now have three boys, aged in their teens, who are all described as "high achievers''.
Judge Altobelli said it was "relatively uncontentious'' that they had "equal' to "near equal'' assets when they met.
The ex-wife had accused her ex-husband of having a major gambling problem as part of her property settlement claim. However, Judge Altobelli found the ex-husband's evidence over his gambling so "evasive'' and "opaque'' that he could not make any findings about it.
He awarded the ex-wife an extra 5 per cent of the pool because of the ex-husband's nondisclosure of his finances.
She secured their Australian houses, cars, 430,000 frequent flyer points and more than $3000 in maintenance a month, leaving $1.3 million for the ex-husband, which included an overseas property, cash and superannuation.
"He is left with assets ... where the court is not satisfied he has provided proper disclosure of his financial affairs, where he earns a substantial income and where his conditions of employment give him the opportunity to save significant sums of money quickly,'' the judge said.
He says that the man was only able to earn as much money as he did because his estranged wife was looking after the kids by herself without him.
Therefore, she is entitled to a share of his post-separation windfall. WTF????
http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...l&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=76222527
AN Australian housewife has won the lion's share of a multi-million-dollar fortune in a divorce case set to shine the light on post-separation contributions to a property pool.
In an extraordinary decision, the mother-of-three has been awarded more than $2 million, including a share of post-separation funds, despite a legal finding she made no contribution to her ex-husband's earning capacity after the split.
The ruling by Federal Circuit Court Judge Tom Altobelli gives her a 70 per cent share of the property pool before the separation and 25 per cent of more than $1 million in assets her ex-husband acquired after taking a lucrative overseas job after they separated in 2010.
"It was the husband's earning capacity that created the post-separation wealth,'' Judge Altobelli said. "His earning capacity, however, is not an asset to which she has contributed.
"An interesting feature of this case is that about one-third of the assets available to (the warring couple) for distribution were accumulated by the husband alone, in a relatively short period after separation when he was able to take advantage of lucrative tax-free employment in (another country).
"By any definition, the husband enjoyed a comfortable, if not luxurious lifestyle (overseas). He earned so much that he was able to accumulate about $1 million in assets. His employment benefits included not just a tax-free income, but allowances for club memberships, motor vehicles, accommodation, travel and even a mobile telephone. By contrast ... the wife was responsible for the care of the children.''
Judge Altobelli said his decision to give the ex-wife 25 per cent of the post-separation property pool was recognition that the ex-husband was "at least in part'' only able to make a greater financial contribution because he was "freed of the caring responsibilities'' of their children.
According to the judgment, the couple were married in 1991 and now have three boys, aged in their teens, who are all described as "high achievers''.
Judge Altobelli said it was "relatively uncontentious'' that they had "equal' to "near equal'' assets when they met.
The ex-wife had accused her ex-husband of having a major gambling problem as part of her property settlement claim. However, Judge Altobelli found the ex-husband's evidence over his gambling so "evasive'' and "opaque'' that he could not make any findings about it.
He awarded the ex-wife an extra 5 per cent of the pool because of the ex-husband's nondisclosure of his finances.
She secured their Australian houses, cars, 430,000 frequent flyer points and more than $3000 in maintenance a month, leaving $1.3 million for the ex-husband, which included an overseas property, cash and superannuation.
"He is left with assets ... where the court is not satisfied he has provided proper disclosure of his financial affairs, where he earns a substantial income and where his conditions of employment give him the opportunity to save significant sums of money quickly,'' the judge said.
