Cheating husband loses two homes, €18k a month, and half of pension

The wife of a repeated adulterer has been awarded the €1.6m family home, a €1.7m holiday home, €18,000 monthly maintenance, and half of his €1.8m pension scheme as part of the judicial separation.

The High Court ruled the mother of four was entitled to a decree of judicial separation because she cannot be reasonably expected to remain with her “extremely dynamic” businessman husband after his admission of repeated and continuing adultery.

The husband, who Mr Justice David Keane noted had average annual earnings of €1.4m for the last five years, can retain his new home, plus other assets, including ownership or control of companies valued at €7.4m; various bank accounts; a share portfolio; and various investment properties valued about €2.3m in early 2014 but subject to loan finance of more than €7.7m.

The judge dismissed claims by the man of unreasonable behaviour by his wife, including slapping him twice in the face.

The judge said that

while physical assault can never be condoned, it was impossible to regard those “minor” incidents, seen in the context of the husband’s infidelities and their particular circumstances, as behaviour so unreasonable the husband could not be expected to live with the wife.

The man’s claim of excessive spending by the wife was also “impossible to sustain”, as the husband’s business was highly profitable during the marriage and both parties “spent freely”, he said.

While the man’s property portfolio went into negative equity, he was able to service the debt with no evidence of restraint on either household or his personal spending.

The judge said, unlike her husband, the man’s wife was “plainly entitled” to a decree of judicial separation for his unreasonable behaviour.

Earlier, the judge noted the couple, aged in their 40s, were married for 18 years before the husband told his wife in late 2012 the marriage was over and left to continue or resume a relationship he had embarked on with a friend of his wife.

He previously had a sexual relationship over several months with an employee and during the proceedings admitted he also engaged in other extra-marital sexual relationships during his marriage.

Given the background of the man’s adultery, it was surprising he, not the wife, initiated the judicial separation proceedings, the judge said.

In assessing proper provision, the judge took into account the husband was an “extremely dynamic” businessman and moving force behind the development of his companies.

The wife’s contribution to the earning capacity and resources of the husband in looking after the home and caring for the family also could and should not be underestimated and he accepted the marital responsibilities she assumed had forced her to relinquish the opportunity of remunerative activity and diminished her future earning capacity.