High society wife’s post separation spending on luxury goods forces ex to sell assets

A big spending spree on luxury goods has seen a woman receive a smaller cut of an asset split in a high society divorce, with the justice commenting on her “distinctive quality of self-entitlement”.

The woman, who cannot be identified, spend $3600 on hair appointment. Picture: istock

The wife in a high society divorce case went on a post separation spending spree on luxury goods and beauty treatments worth thousands and attempted to leave her ex husband to pay the bill.

But now, the amount will impact the woman’s cut from the sale of their mansion, which is worth an estimated $10.8 million.

The Family Court of Australia was told the woman’s shopping list included $1500 on clothes, $9500 on shoes, handbags and glasses plus $7100 on skin appointments, $500 on dating apps and $1250 on tennis lessons between May 2016 and October 2017.

Justice Tom Altobelli ruled the woman’s spending was “excessive” and factored it into his decision on how the couple’s $15 million asset pool would be split between the pair.

The court also heard the woman, who described herself to the court as a “homemaker”, also spent $2200 on gym memberships, $7100 on skin appointments, $3000 for a beautician, $4240 on cosmetics and moisturisers, plus $500 on psychic readings and $3600 on hair appointments over the period.

The court heard the woman spent $9500 on shoes, handbags and glasses.

Neither party can be named because of laws that suppress the identities of parties appearing in the Family Court of Australia.

Justice Altobelli told the court the wife accelerated her spending after the couple’s marriage ended.

“...There was a significant amount of post-separation expenditure incurred by the wife that was sourced from borrowed funds in circumstances where the wife sought to make the husband responsible for part of this debt,” the judge told the court.

The court heard that over the period, the husband was paying the mortgage and outgoings plus spousal and child maintenance and had to sell assets to meet the bills.

She also spent $2200 on gym membership.

“As this consumed the entirety of his net monthly income, joint assets were liquidated,” Justice Altobelli told the court.

The judge ruled that 75 per cent of the wife’s expenditure was excessive and ordered the wife to take responsibility for 75 per cent of a $650,000 loan the couple owed to her parents.

The judge ordered the woman to receive the family home, which is worth at least $10 million, as part of her more than $8 million split of the asset pool.

But the house would have to be sold if the woman could not find another way to finance the more than $1.6 million the husband was entitled to from the value of the property.

Justice Altobelli told the court “The manner in which the husband and the wife each gave evidence in cross-examination was very different.”

“The husband was measured and restrained in his answers. He was almost always responsive to the question he was asked,” he told the court. “He was cooperative and courteous with cross-examining counsel. His focus was on the facts, rather than emotion.”

The judge’s reflection on the wife was unfavourable.

“By contrast, the wife was pervasively unresponsive in cross-examination,” he told the court.

“She was prone to give speeches, rather than to answer the question that was asked of her.

“She was frequently defensive, and sometimes evasive,” he said. “In cross-examination (the wife gave) a distinctive quality of self-entitlement permeated her responses. At times this increased to arrogance.”