AFTER her marriage of 20 years failed, a woman allegedly left the couple’s £2.8 million home with a chest freezer full of rotting food, carpets soiled with cat urine and with its Aga cooker, light fittings and smoke alarms removed.
In a Royal Court judgment, which described the conduct as ‘deplorable’, the former husband also accused his ex-wife of removing wall-mounted televisions, leaving toilets fouled and unflushed and accused her of allowing severe damp to build up.
In a civil case, he lodged a claim of £110,020 for damages for what he claimed was ‘wanton vandalism’ which had made the property ‘unmarketable’ and led to him missing an opportunity to sell it during summer 2019.
Under a previous order made by the court, the judgment says the woman was ordered to transfer all of her interest in various properties to him and pay him £3 million.
She was also ordered to transfer the ownership of three cars to her former husband – a Lamborghini Murcielago Coupé, a Scuderia Ferrari and a Morris Traveller.
Putting forward the claim for damage to the house, Advocate Philip Sinel, representing the former husband, said the property had been in good condition in January 2019 when it was put on the market.
It is alleged that the house was vacated in February 2019, with the transaction formally transferring the property to the husband being completed the following month.
Within the judgment, the woman claims that she removed only items she was entitled to, as per an act of court. She also said she was not responsible for any redecoration and general maintenance and, denied causing damage.
In making its judgment, the court said the property had previously been valued at £2.4 million but that it later sold for £2.8 million – due in part to the increase of house prices and some home-improvement work.
‘Nonetheless, we are satisfied that the increase in value does to some degree reduce the extent of the loss for which the [ex-wife] ought to carry responsibility,’ it said.
It added: ‘We accept that the [ex-husband] received the property in a condition which was not what either he or the court expected when the order was made for its transfer to him. On the other hand, we also think that, as he was expecting to sell the property, he should inevitably have anticipated carrying out such marginal improvements to it as any intending vendor would carry out in order to maximise a sale price.’
The woman was ordered to pay her former husband £15,000. She was also ordered to pay £10,315 in maintenance bills for the Lamborghini, as well as an amount of interest not outlined within the judgment.
