£3m isn’t enough! Divorcee demands more ‘for decent standard of living’
A BEAUTY queen who received a divorce payout of more than £ 3.3million is back in court demanding more money to fund a ‘reasonable standard of living’.
During a marriage lasting ten years, Russian-born londoner Ekaterina Fields, 43, dined at top restaurants, had a Maserati on her drive and the use of a cook and two nannies.
So when she split from american lawyer husband Richard Fields, she asked a judge to award her huge sums, which included £60,000-a-year for beauty treatments and clothes and a further £75,000 for holidays.
although this was rejected by the judge, Mr Fields, 60, was told to pay her £370,000 a year in maintenance, which included £100,000 a year to enable her to build up a savings ‘stockpile’. a £1.2million lump sum and other assets brought her share to £3.3million.
But the former model yesterday claimed through her lawyers that the settlement, awarded last year, was not enough to fund a reasonable lifestyle in the future.
She is now asking for her former husband to pay into her nest egg at £215,000 a year – more than double the rate found by the original judge.
During the couple’s notorious divorce battle last year, Mr Justice Holman was told some might consider their lifestyle ‘eye-watering’.
Describing how she enjoyed a ‘luxurious’ mode of living, Mrs Fields suggested money was no object as she told the court hearing: ‘We enjoyed frequent foreign holidays, always flying business class, and ate in the finest restaurants.’
But yesterday’s appeal centred on Mrs Field’s assertion that the £100,000 she had been given for her savings pot was never enough.
The court heard that Mr Justice Holman had intended that after sav- ing that sum over ten years she would have £1million in the bank along with gains from interest.
But lawyers for Mrs Fields, who was Mr Fields’ fifth wife, argued that because her former husband is much older than her and has some ‘health issues’ this means his time as a top earner will be limited.
This meant the nest egg she is likely to be left with would be ‘insufficient to maintain a reasonable standard of living,’ said lady Justice Black.
‘It is suggested that Mr Justice Holman failed to appreciate that the husband could pay more each year, enabling the wife to build the fund at a rate of £215,000 per annum,’ she added.
opposing her application, lawyers for Mr Fields, who was not in court, said he had suffered a downturn in his income and was planning an application to vary the order downwards.
Mrs Field’s appeal bid was adjourned until a later date, as further evidence was needed about Mr Field’s health.