Court rules the husband had “dissipated very substantial amounts of money” on alcohol, marijuana and gambling and so had significantly drained the pool of assets to be divided up
A hard-living husband cannot split his enormous beer, drugs and gambling bill with his ex-wife in their divorce settlement, an Australian court said, in a ruling made available at the weekend.
Federal Magistrate Philip Burchardt awarded the wife 70 percent of the couple’s assets after totting up the cost of up to 87,600 bottles of beer over a 20-year marriage.
Burchardt said that normally assets would be split 50-50 but “it is in my opinion appropriate that there be a 20-percent loading in the wife’s favour”.
This was because the husband had “dissipated very substantial amounts of money” on alcohol, marijuana and gambling and so had significantly drained the pool of assets to be divided up.
Burchardt rejected the husband’s claim that the beers were bought for him.
“I accept the evidence of the wife that the husband was given beers at Christmas but not otherwise,” Burchardt said.
The ruling of the Melbourne court meant the wife received an additional 150,000 Australian dollars (154,000 US dollars).
Wife gets more in divorce - because of husband's drinking
Court rules the husband had “dissipated very substantial amounts of money” on alcohol, marijuana and gambling and so had significantly drained the pool of assets to be divided up
A hard-living husband cannot split his enormous beer, drugs and gambling bill with his ex-wife in their divorce settlement, an Australian court said, in a ruling made available at the weekend.
Federal Magistrate Philip Burchardt awarded the wife 70 percent of the couple’s assets after totting up the cost of up to 87,600 bottles of beer over a 20-year marriage.
Burchardt said that normally assets would be split 50-50 but “it is in my opinion appropriate that there be a 20-percent loading in the wife’s favour”.
This was because the husband had “dissipated very substantial amounts of money” on alcohol, marijuana and gambling and so had significantly drained the pool of assets to be divided up.
Burchardt rejected the husband’s claim that the beers were bought for him.
“I accept the evidence of the wife that the husband was given beers at Christmas but not otherwise,” Burchardt said.
The ruling of the Melbourne court meant the wife received an additional 150,000 Australian dollars (154,000 US dollars).
Would you like to comment on this article?
Register (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.
Trending
Latest Videos