‘Trophy’ wife wins R11m divorce prize
Judge slams advocate for hiding wealth in bid to cheat spouse
A SENIOR advocate snared a “trophy wife” 25 years his junior, got her pregnant then forced her to sign a contract the day before their wedding barring her from claiming maintenance if the marriage broke down.
Then he “systematically divested his estate of assets” with the “calculated objective of placing them beyond his wife’s reach”, according to a judge.
The stratagem backfired to the tune of around R20-million when the couple’s six-year divorce case was finally settled in the High Court in Cape Town last week.
But Acting Judge Leslie Weinkove admitted that because the advocate, who may not be named, had been evasive and dishonest, it had not been possible to accurately calculate his total worth.
He had pleaded ignorance about at least three offshore trusts in tax havens, failed to disclose the contents of safety deposit boxes in Germany and Paarl, refused to allow paintings to be valued and concealed his holding in a wine farm.
Weinkove peppered his judgment with attacks on the conduct of the advocate, a member of the Johannesburg Bar, saying: “For a senior counsel to conduct himself in this manner is nothing short of scandalous.”
His behaviour had put his wife “on the verge of a mental breakdown” and she “even considered suicide”, the judge said.
The advocate also faces an inquiry by the Johannesburg Bar Council.
The chairman of its professional and fees committee, Pierre Rossouw SC, told the Sunday Times: “Counsel are duty bound to report misconduct if there are reasonable grounds for believing that another counsel has been guilty of unprofessional conduct. Counsel also have a duty to self-report.”
The committee would consider Weinkove’s judgment, give the advocate the opportunity to defend himself, and make a rec- GETAWAY CAR: As part of his divorce settlement, the advocate has to buy his ex-wife a R550 000 car and replace it every six years with a vehicle ‘having the equivalent value of a new Subaru Outback 2.5i Premium’ ommendation to the Bar Council. “It is not possible to assess what the probable sanction will be, if any,” said Rossouw.
The couple married in Germany in July 1992, 10 days before the wife, then 28, delivered the first of their two children.
Weinkove said the advocate described his first divorce as “very, very, very costly”, and he took advantage of the gullibility and naivety of his new wife — “an attractive trophy” — to include a clause in their antenuptial contract “that no court could award her any maintenance for any reason whatsoever”.
During their marriage the husband bought, built and sold various properties, including homes in Auckland Park, Saxonwold and Parkview, in Johannesburg; a house neighbouring Bishops school in Rondebosch, Cape Town; farms in Mpumalanga, the Western Cape, Namibia and France; and a house in Windhoek that later became an embassy.
His financial statements showed that his legal practice in several southern African countries earned up to R5.68-million a year, but at the same time he embarked on a scheme to “denude” his estate.
“He set up a network of companies, trust companies and trust structures ostensibly for ‘estate planning purposes’,” said Weinkove.
“By his own account, he systematically removed the growth assets from his estate and has advanced interest-free loans to those entities to the detriment of his estate.”
The judge reserved his most withering criticism for the husband’s “scorched earth” approach to the divorce, which involved dragging out proceedings over 50 court days, in the process racking up legal fees which he estimated at R2-million.
“The manner in which [he] has conducted this litigation is sufficient to break the spirit of the strongest litigant. [He] has busied himself at all times seeking postponements . . . to delay proceedings,” he said.
After ruling that the “no maintenance” clause in the antenuptial contract was “void, unenforceable and unconstitutional”, Weinkove said the verifiable information available to him valued the husband’s estate at R22 259 702, and he awarded half to the ex-wife.
He also ordered the husband to pay his wife’s legal fees; to transfer his half of the multimillion-rand Rondebosch home to her; to buy her a R550 000 car on September 1 and replacements — “having the equivalent value of a new Subaru Outback 2.5i Premium” — every six years; and to pay her R30 000 a month, increasing annually by the headline inflation rate.
Weinkove dismissed the husband’s claim to half the money he had spent during the marriage on property improvements, rates and electricity.
“It is difficult to imagine how he could possibly have shared bed and board with the wife,” he said. “He fathered children with her and behaved as a husband to her, while all the time secretly accumulating evidential proof of the extent of the rates, electricity, water and other household charges that he was paying for.
“The concept of chivalry is beyond his comprehension and lies dead and buried in his mind, if it ever existed.”
It is difficult to imagine how he could possibly have shared bed and board with the wife