Morning:
14°c
The ex-wife of a multi-millionaire property tycoon today won the first stage of her attempt to overturn a High Court ruling to pay him £5 million to offset his losses in the credit crunch.
Three senior judges ruled that an appeal by Elena Bowes Marano should go ahead in what could become a landmark case affecting dozens of other
“big money” divorce disputes.
Mrs Marano separated from husband Peter Marano, chairman of Gemini Commercial Investments, in February 2007 after 20 years of marriage.
But their divorce was so protracted that by the time the final order was made in March this year his equity in two Square Mile property developments worth £350 million had plunged from
£88 million to minus £10 million.
As a result Mrs Justice King ordered that Mrs Marano, described in court today as “hugely rich” in her own right, should pay him £5 million to cover half of his credit crunch losses.
Her barrister, Nicholas Mostyn QC, told the Court of Appeal this money was levied from her personal, nonmarital, property which was unfairly
“invaded” by the High Court ruling.
He described Mrs Justice King's approach as “a perverse decision, legally incorrect and demonstrably unfair.”
Disputing the minus value put on Mr Marano's property portfolio, he added: “The judge erred in focusing merely on a snapshot of the current assets taken in these exceptional times.”
He added: “Next year, Mr Brown and Mr Darling say we will be back in growth. The buildings are almost fully let, on relatively long leases to high quality tenants with good covenants.
“Mr Marano could have encashed his profit at the time of separation but chose not to, no doubt hoping for greater things. That was his decision alone and he was later engulfed by the recession.
There are many cases of this kind where the value of investments have fallen off a cliff — the husband says permanently, the wife says temporarily.”
Lord Justice Thorpe, with Lord Justice Longmore and Mr Justice Bodey, ruled the appeal should go ahead on a date to be fixed. He said he had “some hesitation” in granting permission to appeal, but concluded that “justice requires”
Mrs Marano's case to be heard.
The court heard that Mrs Marano has already spent £1 million in legal fees on fighting the divorce battle, and her ex-husband is likely to have expended a similar sum.
Reader views (2)
Recently there was a case where the husband tried unsucessfuly to have the amount he had to pay reduced, because of the crunch. This was rightfully refused. Also, wives have frequently gained access to "personal, nonmarital, property". If the family court is fair, then this case to should be thrown out.
- Jeremy E, Home Counties
He added: “Next year, Mr Brown and Mr Darling say we will be back in growth."
interesting to put brown and his lackey in the witness box to confirm this.
- John Lowe, london UK
