A woman who claimed her husband told her “you came from nothing and you will go back to nothing” has won her appeal aimed at securing proper provision in divorce proceedings.
The man’s behaviour in trying to limit provision for his wife was “disgraceful”, Mr Justice John Jordan said in the High Court.
A deed of separation was of “much greater benefit” to him than his wife and his “strategy”, “pursued with military precision”, was to minimise provision for her with particular emphasis on protecting his family’s farm, which was “always earmarked” for him.
He made the comments in a judgment, published this week, granting the woman’s appeal over the deed of separation and making orders for proper provision.
RM Block
Aged in their 50s and with two adult children, the parties entered the deed in 2020.
It provided, among other things, for both to renounce their rights under the Succession Act, to agree the deed constituted proper provision in the event of divorce proceedings and to fully disclose their assets and liabilities.
The title of their mortgaged family home is still registered in the name of the man’s late mother, but was to be registered in the husband’s name.
The family home has always been regarded as jointly owned by the man and his wife, the judge said.
The man was to pay €100,000 to renovate a cottage to be put into the woman’s name and €150 weekly maintenance for both children.
The man has for decades farmed a substantial farm, held in his father’s name. His siblings are involved in other businesses and occupations, yet the man said he was unlikely to get the lands.
A “curious feature” of the case was he was “clearly a man of assets but with little legally held in his name”, the judge said. He remains involved in farming and in another business.
The woman had said she struggled to remain “visible” in the marriage and “stepped out” of it in 2017. Her husband suggested mediation; that did not work. When he asked her in 2018 about a reconciliation, she believed he was genuine.
They got back together, and he later told her they would have to talk about a legal separation. He told her and the children this would allow them to receive farms they would not otherwise get. He said it “would only be on paper” and they could renovate a cottage to be put into her name which could be used for Airbnb until the family farm was sorted out.
The woman said she and her husband were intimate at the time and she felt pressurised to enter into the deed. Six weeks later, he told her what he had done and that she could “do nothing” about it.
He turned “nasty” and said things like “you don’t leave a [his surname] ... you came from nothing and you will go back to nothing”, she said.
The judge found the woman to be credible and her evidence reliable. The same could not be said of the man, he said; there was “absolutely no doubt” he was destined to acquire his family lands and he had not fully disclosed his assets and income.
The woman has a modest monthly income from her work and, apart from her interest in the family home, had little assets and “not insignificant” health issues.
The judge overturned the separation deed as not a bona fide agreement by reason of the man’s “deliberate deception”.
He made proper provision orders, including directing the family home be transferred into the woman’s sole name and the man must discharge the mortgage.
The man could move into the cottage, the judge said, saying there may be another large dwelling that remained “something of a mystery”.
Other orders included ones directing a property will remain registered in the man’s name and requiring him to pay the woman €100,000, €440 monthly maintenance for the youngest child and 75 per cent of the legal costs of the High Court case.
