Wife has a right to divorce millions even if she sets up home with another man
A MILLIONAIRE divorcee has the right to remain rich and financially independent and should not have to rely on her new partner for support, one of Britain’s top judges has ruled.
Mother-of-two Karen Hart, 60, was awarded £3.5 million from a £10 million family fortune when she split from property mogul John Hart after 20 years of marriage.
Mr Hart, 77, told the Appeal Court yesterday that the divorce court’s ruling was unfair because his ex-wife had been living with another man ‘ for years’. He says the payout should be slashed, because she should look to her new partner for financial support.
But Mrs Hart said she needed every penny of the £3.5million to remain ‘financially independent’ of her new partner and not be forced into marrying him by a lack of funds.
And in a landmark decision, Sir James Munby agreed, ruling that the ‘presence of her new partner in her life did not diminish her needs’ financially as a single woman.
The court heard that Mr and Mrs Hart began living together in 1983, and married in 1987. The couple had two children and lived in a £1.1million gated home in the hamlet of wishaw, near Sutton Coldfield, in warwickshire. They also owned properties in Miami and Spain and amassed a £10 million fortune from property development before divorce proceedings began in 2011.
Mr Hart complained to Judge Stephen wildblood QC at a hearing last year that his ex-wife had been living with her new partner, Tim Chubb, ‘for years’ and claimed that her share of the family wealth should be cut, on the assumption that she would rely on Mr Chubb financially. But Judge wildblood refused to lower his assessment of Mrs Hart’s financial ‘needs’.
Mr Hart, representing himself, told the court yesterday: ‘My wife has been living as man and wife with somebody for years. It could be ten years.
‘They have a bank account together, a home together and credit cards together. You can hardly agree with Judge wildblood when he said they lead separate lives.
‘They are obviously living together as man and wife. If it had gone before ten judges, I think nine of them would have agreed with me.’
He told Sir James that case law showed that divorce courts generally take account of a re-marriage, or the prospect of a re-marriage, when assess- ing the post-split financial needs of a wife leaving an affluent marriage.
He added: ‘I can’t believe that anybody with normal sense wouldn’t see they are living together as man and wife. I believe that Judge wildblood definitely got this wrong.’
Peter Mitchell, for Mrs Hart, accepted that she was in a long-term relationship with Mr Chubb, but said that, after 20 years of marriage, she cherished her independence and did not want to have to rely on a man for money.
She and Mr Chubb ‘have no current intention to marry’, the lawyer said, adding: ‘whatever Mrs Hart decides to do in her relationship, she should not be obliged to do it because of a judge’s order.’ Sir James said the call had been a tricky one for Judge wildblood to make. ‘If one gets it wrong one way, the wife is left stranded. If one gets it wrong the other way, the husband is aggrieved,’ he said.
But he concluded: ‘I do not consider the presence of Mr Chubb in the life of Mrs Hart should diminish her needs.’
Holly Tootill, a family lawyer with JMW Solicitors, said: ‘The courts cannot predict how a post-separation relationship will proceed and, of course, there is currently no law allowing for a division of assets once co-habiting couples break up. That means that if Mr Hart won his case, his ex-wife would have seen her entitlement reduced because of a relationship which might well not last, leaving her potentially unable to meet her future needs.’
neither Mr Hart nor Mrs Hart made any comment after the hearing in London.
‘The judge definitely got this wrong’