UK Supreme Court rules prenuptial contract should be binding

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
£100million prenup heiress hits out at 'unfaithful and greedy' husband

By Vanessa Allen

21st October 2010

Multi-millionaire Katrin Radmacher, 41, said her former husband had only married her for money, and admitted she had been blinded by love.

Miss Radmacher, one of Europe's wealthiest women, made legal history this week when the Supreme Court ruled her prenuptial contract should be binding.

Nicolas Granatino, 39, had tried to win £9.2million from her in the divorce courts, despite signing a marriage agreement that he would make no financial claim if their relationship failed.

The Supreme Court ruling effectively legalised prenup deals in England, sweeping aside centuries of tradition that a married couple share all their property.

Supporters of the contracts insist they will reduce the misery of divorce, as couples will no longer face a legal battle over their assets.

But for German heiress Miss Radmacher, whose fortune has been estimated at £106million, her divorce has proved bitter, expensive and very public.

'Looking back, I don't think he would have married me if I didn't have a penny,' she said.

'I fell head over heels with him. I was madly in love and we married too quickly, before I had really got to know him.'

Miss Radmacher said the judgement marked the end of a 'four-year nightmare', adding: 'It's been pretty hard.'

She told the London Evening Standard: 'I was the kind of girl who truly wants to be married just once. But things do go wrong and it is better to have a form of insurance. I don't think it's unromantic: just practical.'

Asked if the father of her two daughters had been faithful to her, she said: 'No, I don't think he was, but I didn't know that then. I think he cared a lot more about the money and that motivated him much more than it did me.'

Miss Radmacher told how her eight-year marriage had unravelled, despite three years of weekly relationship therapy sessions.

The couple met in Tramp's nightclub in 1997 and married a year later, after Miss Radmacher's father insisted they sign a prenup to protect her fortune and the family's vast paper-making empire.

When they married, Mr Granatino - himself the son of a French multi-millionaire - was an investment banker with JP Morgan, and was earning £120,000-a-year.

But in 2003 he quit his job in the City to study for a research doctorate at Oxford University, although he continued to rely on his wealthy wife to fund his luxury lifestyle.

She told Tatler magazine: 'I bought him a car because after the Madrid bombings in 2004 he said he didn't want to take the train to Oxford.

'I pointed at the BMW 5 Series; he pointed at the 6 Series and a Bentley. So I went for the 6 Series.

'No matter what I gave him, the moment he had it he wanted the next thing. It was very frustrating.

'He had a lot of things for himself that I would consider too expensive for me. His suits were Brioni.

'I bought him a watch from Breguet, a nice watch for our engagement. He wanted a more expensive one; I got him a £40,000 one. Then he pointed at the £150,000 one... That is not how I have been raised.'

Miss Radmacher said she realised her marriage was over during a luxury Caribbean holiday in the Turks and Caicos in 2006.

When they returned she announced she wanted a divorce, and offered Mr Granatino an identical flat to the £7,000-a-month apartment they shared on Sloane Street, West London.

She also offered him a financial settlement so he could finish his doctorate and continue to see their daughters, Chiara and Chloe, now aged 11 and eight.

Both sides consulted divorce lawyers, whose letters began arriving at the same flat, until Miss Radmacher eventually moved out with her daughters.

During their High Court divorce battle, Mr Granatino was awarded £5.5million, including £2.5million for a house, £25,000 for a car and £700,000 to pay off his debts.

The Supreme Court ruling means that settlement has been scrapped, and Miss Radmacher will now pay him £70,000-a-year until 2024, when their eldest daughter turns 22.

Miss Radmacher said a prenup was the only way a wealthy spouse could ensure they were marrying for love.

She said: 'It is the only way you can make certain that you are important as a person, not as a bank account.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-unfaithful-greedy-husband.html#ixzz132AbLGVO
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
I like this. The point of a prenup for the wealthy is to ensure they are not married, and then divorved, for their money.

Sure, if a rich guy (or gal) gets a trophy wife (or hunk) then there is an expectation that the trophy wife gal (or hunk) is doing it for the money/lifestyle. If a rich 60 year old married a 22 years old Barbie, sure she probably did it for the money - fair enough. BUT the deal is to get the money you have to STAY married to the guy (or rich gal for hunks). It is no fair if you marry them and as soon as possible bail and try to get half the cash for youself so you can be rich and get your own sexually attractive playmate.

Rich people should always get a prenup and it should always be enforced by the courts. Fair has nothing to do with it. If the prenup says the spouse gets nothing in the event of divorce, they are legally entitled to nothing. If the rich spouse, out of the goodness of their heart, generously offers a settlement, count oneself lucky they are nice. In this case the heiress offered him an expensive apartment and an undisclosed financial settlement to live comfortably on for years. He wanted millions instead. The lower courts said he was entitled to more than nothing as his spouse was rich, and the prenup wasn't valid because rich people can't get their future spouses to sign deals whereby they get nothing in a divorce. Well, I say WHY THE HELL NOT? If he/she doesn't want to sign, they can elect not to marry the guy/girl. No one is forcing marriage on them. I totally do not support the concept of division of assets if a prenup is in place saying the divorcing party gets no money at all legally in the event of divorce.

So good show UK Supreme Court!!!
 

freedom3

New member
Mar 7, 2004
1,431
6
0
Toronto
This typifies the legal process. For years, british courts refused to uphold prenups. However, as soon as it was a man who was looking to cash in, all of a sudden prenups are binding. One rule for women and another for men.
 

Aardvark154

New member
Jan 19, 2006
53,768
3
0
Rich people should always get a prenup and it should always be enforced by the courts. Fair has nothing to do with it. If the prenup says the spouse gets nothing in the event of divorce, they are legally entitled to nothing.
At least in the U.S. fair has a great deal to do with it. Yes, if the marriage has lasted for six months you get nothing, if the marriage has lasted for thirty years and three children who are now in University and the spouse gave up their career to be a full time homemaker. . . I don't quite think so, at least where I practice (I realize Florida is a bit more reactionary).
 

alexmst

New member
Dec 27, 2004
6,939
1
0
At least in the U.S. fair has a great deal to do with it. Yes, if the marriage has lasted for six months you get nothing, if the marriage has lasted for thirty years and three children who are now in University and the spouse gave up their career to be a full time homemaker. . . I don't quite think so, at least where I practice (I realize Florida is a bit more reactionary).
Yes, I agree if there are children the spouse getting custody is entitled to child support. Also, sure, if ther marriage was one of 20 years and the wealth was built up during the marriage through income and investments, then sure, the spouse should be entitled to something fair.

My reaction wasn't so much a legal one as a personal opinion.

It irks me when young gold diggers (or either sex) plot to marry an older person in order to fleece them in a quick divorce. In the case described, the guy during the marriage wanted $200,000 watches, Bentley car, etc. OK, if the trophy person wants these luxuries during the marriage, and if the rich person wants to indulge them, fine, that is between them. If an older guy marries a girl 40 years his junior as a trophy wife, the BMW and jewels are to be expected, IMHO. He gets a young hot girl, she gets a luxury lifestyle - fair trade. With a prenup he could divorce her if he felt it was loveless and depressing and he was just an ATM to her.

What I don't like is the "have ones's cake and eat it too" ones who aren't happy with the luxury life trade but just want to get divorced as soon as they can and get a good chunk of his/her wealth in parting. They plan the divorce prior to the wedding as a lotto payout. That isn't right IMHO. They sign the prenup knowing courts won't let them walk away with nothing if the guy is rich. I say, if they sign a prenup saying they get nothing, they should get nothing. It is stupid to sign such a one-sided prenup anyway - one that says you get nothing. I'm all for a fair prenup - but if one party is so worried that the other is a gold-digger that one gets a "you get nothing" prenup drawn up, then the courts should honor it if there are no kids and the marriage is less than 10 years old. Better to get a fair prenup that spells out what the rich side thinks is a fair offer - not half, but decent. if she/he won't sign it, no wedding.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts