Penniless Playboy
Unfair divorce left me broke, says tycoon who moved young pin-up lover into luxury flat
A MILLIONAIRE entrepreneur who moved his young Playboy model lover into his luxury Miami apartment is appealing against a divorce settlement he claims left him penniless.
Richard Rothschild – described by his own lawyer as ‘insensitive and overbearing’ – says the judge awarded his ex-wife an unfair share, leaving him with assets that are worthless.
Mr Rothschild, 45, enjoyed a lavish lifestyle and once drove a Lamborghini during his 21-year relationship with Charmaine de Souza.
They met as students and built up a successful west London-based mobile phone business.
But after 11 years of marriage – and two children – they split in 2016.
They first clashed in court in 2018 after Mr Rothschild moved his then girlfriend, Playboy model Sherra Michelle, into the couple’s Miami Beach apartment. A judge threatened to jail him if he and his lover, who at 29 is 16 years his junior, did not move out of the apartment as promised. He was supposed to be refurbishing and renting out the property, not living in it, while the divorce was being settled.
That issue was resolved and he was allowed to stay there – although apparently no longer with his lover.
Last December, the divorce was finalised in court with Justice Cohen awarding Ms de Souza, 46, ownership of the €2million mobile phone firm plus cash and properties worth another €1.1million.
The judge said the earnings of more than €223,000 a year from the business were to provide for her and the children. Mr Rothschild was given the Miami apartment, which the judge valued at €2.65million.
He claims the property, which he and his wife bought in 2008 for €1.7million, is worth far less.
After paying off court costs and huge debts he has been left ‘with in effect no capital at all, and no income’.
Mr Rothschild’s barrister told London’s appeal court that Justice Cohen had treated his client in a ‘draconian’ fashion by weighing his former wife’s needs over his. Patrick Chamberlayne QC said that while Ms de Souza had been left with capital worth some €1.95million, Mr Rothschild had less than €27,000, depriving him of ‘every penny, everything he has achieved’ in his relationship and no means of earning.
He noted that Justice Cohen had criticised Mr Rothschild’s behaviour as ‘lamentable’ and ‘vindictive and irrational’, adding: ‘There is no doubt that the husband presented himself to the judge as an unattractive personality, insensitive, over-confident and overbearing. ‘The overwhelming impression is that the judge sympathised with the wife’s position due to the husband’s behaviour. However, that caused him to lose sight of considering both parties’ needs and to reach the ultimate draconian outcome – all the net assets and available income go to one party, permanently, and the other party gets nothing, permanently.’
Charles Hall QC, for Ms de Souza, argued in response that Mr Justice Cohen got it right. He said that the disparity in the outcomes for Mr Rothschild – who was not born with the surname of the famous banking dynasty but appears to have adopted it – and Ms de Souza could be explained by considering their children’s needs.
The appeal court reserved its decision to a later date.
‘Vindictive and irrational’