AN EX-WIFE has lost a bold legal bid for a slice of a million-dollar property pool belonging to her late ex-husband's lover.
The extraordinary fight between the two women erupted in 2011 after the Queensland businessman died suddenly from a brain tumour, leaving behind his legal claim for a $36,000 bill for carrying out renovations on his lover's four properties.
His ex-wife, who worked as his book-keeper, pursued the property proceedings on his behalf in the Family Court in Brisbane, filing more than 160 receipts for the "large multitude of individual items" she claims he paid for during his four-year relationship with the lover.
Justice Peter Murphy said items included "built-in wardrobes, a toilet seat, weed control mat, shower organiser, drainage pipes, masking tape, a trimming knife, decking, fencing and a measuring tape".
He said the ex-wife "collated" the large list of expenditure, which included bills for "social outings" and "holidays", based on conversations she had with her ex-husband before he died.
Justice Murphy said the couple, who had two children, split in 2004, two days before the ex-husband was made bankrupt, but she continued to work for him.
He had signed over their marital home to her, and she sold it.
He left the marriage with his business, furniture and "tools of trade".
He moved in with his lover in 2005, but they split up twice.
However, during the relationship, his lover purchased three properties.
The love affair ended after he suffered a seizure - the "prelude to his death".
At the time he died, he had launched property proceedings for the cost of "significant renovations" he claims he undertook for his lover, including twice refitting her business premises.
But Justice Murphy said she "vehemently" denied the claims, arguing she had "reimbursed him" for everything.
"'She identifies two trips to Sydney which, she says, (he) provided to her as gifts," Justice Murphy said.
"The vehemence with which (she) maintained ... that (he) spent 'very, very, very, very little' in and around her properties, and her equally vehement denial that he made weekly payments of $200 (board), struck me as having an element of hyperbole," Justice Murphy said.
But Justice Murphy said he accepted her claim's that he was "always complaining" about his finances.
While the ex-husband may have had a "sustainable claim for maintenance" had he lived, Justice Murphy found it was not "just and equitable" to make a property order against his lover.
"This was very much a relationship within which (they) lived essentially independent financial lives," he said.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét