View Full Version : Gold digger or just a really angry woman ?

Ivana Kransky
5th Dec 2017, 23:40
Found in todays “Australian” newspaper , $270 000 a WEEK in maintenance?


After 33 hearings, and $35 million spent on legal fees, the nation’s longest-running and most expen*sive divorce has come to an end. Maybe.

Nobody has yet ruled out one last-ditch appeal by the wife, but after 12 years of near-continuous litigation, orders have finally been made in the Family Court case known as Strahan v Strahan.

In delivering his judgment, Paul Cronin made the point that the couple had been battling each other in court for almost as long as they had been married.

“The expense has been extraordinary,” Justice Cronin said.

The wife, known as Mrs Strahan, engaged “about 15 different firms of lawyers” as she fought for what she regarded as a fair slice of the marital assets.

Mr and Mrs Strahan met in the late 1980s, married in 1994, and divorce*d in 2006.

They have one adult son who has autism. His *parents have been at war since he was nine years old.

The matter was listed for a final hearing in the Family Court last month, despite the wife’s desire for another adjourn*ment, which would have taken the matter into next year.

Justice Cronin refused, saying that “after 12 years of waiting, and at huge expense, the husband is *entitled to have the matter concluded*”.

The wife previously told the court she required at least $278,000 a week in spousal maintenance, in part to cover the cost of caring for their son, described* in earlier court documents as “a little prince” since he has a number of full-time carers, including members of their immediate family.

They include autism experts, a personal chef and security guards, all of whom travel the world with him.

The wife says that besides *autism, the son suffers from *anxiety, insomnia, seizures, Lyme disease and “tick-borne disease”. His care needs have been estimated at $70,760 a week.

The court found the husband had been covering these costs for years.

He established various businesses in Asia and Australia before he met his wife.

Those businesses were at one point generating an income for the husband of about $90,000 a week.

He used the proceeds to financ*e a slew of properties, including* a Swiss chalet and an apartment in Asia, as well as five houses in Australia.

Upon separating from his wife in 2005, he gave her about $7m, before moving to Asia, where he now lives with his second* wife and their eight-year-old daughter.

The husband’s circumstances are not as flush as they once were, in part because of the cost of litig*ation in the Family Court.

The husband also believes his wife *encouraged the Australian Federal Police and the Australian Taxation Office to get involved in his business affairs.

The court found the husband had brought considerable wealth to the marriage, and should thus be entitled to exit with a greater slice of *assets. Justice Cronin valued* the pool at $48.4m.

He decided the wife should get five properties, plus cash and chattels, with a combined value of $11m, to add to the $13m she has already received.

The husband will be left with assets totalling $38m.

He also gets the keys to the Swiss chalet

SMT Member
6th Dec 2017, 06:48
Having gone through a divorce, I'm extremely pleased to live in a place where this would be legally impossible under most circumstances.

The only cases where an ex. wife (or husband) would get an allowance or settlement fee are if the husband 'forces' the wife to quit her career in order for him to pursue his. You'll also have to be married for an extended time (+10 years) and they'll also look at future opportunities based on education.

So if you've married a girl or boy, who has some sort of education and has had the opportunity to maintain a job during the marriage, you'll be awarded the exact sum of SFA. That is regardless of how long you've been married. If, however, you've been married for +10 years AND you had an agreement where the spouse didn't pursue a career or obtained an education, then you may be liable to support her post divorce.

This lark about marrying a bloke for a few years, then divorce and leave with house, car, money and alimony is legally impossible here. Child support, if indeed children are involved, is all you'll get, the amount of which is only marginally governed by income.

Ancient Mariner
6th Dec 2017, 07:29
SMT Member, Norway?

Effluent Man
6th Dec 2017, 08:30
I don't see the problem here. He is left with 38 million.

SMT Member
6th Dec 2017, 08:58
SMT Member, Norway?

Bit further south, but not by much.

SMT Member
6th Dec 2017, 09:00
I don't see the problem here. He is left with 38 million.

It's not about the money, it's about the principle of things. Womens liberation, equality of sexes and all that. Two things I'm absolutely in favour of, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

6th Dec 2017, 10:00
A few years back I was in London walking through the streets with a Lawyer
We passed a broken man sitting on the street begging. Someone who slept rough

The Lawyer pointed to him and told me that at one time the beggar was a wealthy property developer

Back then £12 million was a lot of money and he told me the story of that beggar
He married a woman who was a she devil. The woman filed for divorce going to a very high calibre divorce lawyer who was known to be ruthless as well as sleeping with a lot of his female clients

The beggars company was valued at £12 million but the lawyer claimed £20 million value and hounded him to the point of desperation
The Beggar was a self made man and in the end agreed to pay her £10 million claiming it was worth it to get rid of her and her demands.
Anyway he would make it all back he claimed

Soon after that the recession hit and the beggar got into financial difficulties suffering a major nervous breakdown which he never fully recovered from aided by a drink problem

The wife moved on to another wealthy guy with her £10 million
The Lawyer friend told me that every day she walks past him in her furs and threw 50 p into his hat

He used to sit near Piccadilly Circus on the road leading to Green Park but is no longer there so I presume the poor sod past on

It is not right that a woman who is not capable of earning more than a waitress job is entitled to so much from her husbands talent
It is not fair to the millions of women who get abandoned by ordinary men and get nothing to bring up kids
There is something obscene about it

As Eddie Irvine once said if it flies floats or F+cks rent dont buy

Ancient Mariner
6th Dec 2017, 11:03
Bit further south, but not by much.

Same system then. Not that it matters much, to me.

6th Dec 2017, 17:40
I wonder when a lesbian couple divorce, how are they both going to get 75% of everything?