'Get used to being poor': Judge orders ã400m divorce wife to be evicted from ã8,000-a-month home By Vanessa Allen Last updated at 11:01 AM on 15th October 2009 * Comments (417) * Add to My Stories A woman who is seeking half her husband's ã400million fortune in a divorce settlement lost her battle against eviction yesterday and was told to get used to being poor. Michelle Young, 45, must move out of her townhouse in Regent's Park within six weeks or face being forcibly removed by bailiffs. She had argued that being evicted from the property would cause her and her two daughters 'exceptional hardship'. But lawyer Felix Geiringer, representing her landlords, turned on the former model, telling her that if she wanted the court to believe her divorce fight had left her penniless, she should start claiming benefits and find a council house. Mr Geiringer told Mrs Young it was time for her to face the reality of her situation. 'The fact that she continues to wish to live in an ã8,666-a-month house, to school her children in an expensive school, to come to court dressed in very fine clothes - the fact that she makes these choices does not bring her within the realm of exceptional hardship,' he said. 'Nobody in this country needs to be homeless. If she's being evicted then the local council has an obligation to provide her with housing. She has access to benefits, her children can be schooled for free. The fact is that she is not seeking benefits that are available to her.' Mrs Young is at the centre of one of Britain's most high-value divorces, and is seeking a ã200million settlement from her estranged husband, tycoon Scot Young. More... * Marrying a rich man is not an alternative to getting a career, barrister tells women * Survey finds women would rather travel with friends than their spouses * Free honeymoons for Malaysian couples on brink of divorce Mr Young, a one-time 'fixer' to the super-rich, claims that the credit crunch destroyed his property empire and left him with debts of ã27million. He has not paid Mrs Young any maintenance for almost a year, and their daughters' ã9,000-a-term school fees have gone unpaid since April, the court heard. Mrs Young claims he has also failed to pay almost ã24,000 in rent on the home she shares with the girls, who are aged 17 and 15. She insists he has hidden his fortune in offshore bank accounts and secret property deals to avoid a court order to hand over half his assets. Mrs Young has called for her husband to be jailed if he cannot explain how he lost his fortune, and her lawyers have asked for him to hear 'the clang of the prison gate'. But she has been unable to stop her landlords, Peter and Charlotte Bolland, from seeking her eviction. Yesterday's hearing at the Central London County Court laid bare the extent of her riches-to-rags saga. Her lawyer Claire van Overdijk told the court: 'In order to be able to survive and support her two daughters... she has sold all her jewellery now and has no assets worth selling to her name.' Mrs van Overdijk said Mrs Young owed solicitors' fees of ã120,000, and said her daughters' unpaid school fees now totalled ã36,000. She added: 'Mrs Young's funds are effectively zero. At this moment in time she has no funds to her name.' But Mr Geiringer said Mrs Young's case was no worse than that of any other evictee who had come before the judge in these difficult economic times. He told the court: 'On a cold-hearted, rational assessment of her own evidence, the defendant is failing to come to terms with a change in her personal circumstances. 'One can be sympathetic to that, and can accept that she is having a very hard time, but in my submission that does not reach the level of exceptional hardship. 'The circumstances the defendant finds herself in are not more difficult than the average person facing eviction. 'Everybody who is evicted from their residence has difficulties associated with that eviction.' District Judge Michael Gilchrist gave Mrs Young a six-week stay of execution to find a new house, but awarded her landlords a possession order for November 25. She appeared close to tears as she left the court, and she later issued an emotional statement in which she said she was 'utterly distraught'. It said: 'My husband, Scot Young, has totally abandoned his responsibilities to his young daughters, and his failure to provide a safe and secure home for them is causing exceptional emotional torment. 'He appears to have no concern for the welfare of his girls, let alone me. 'He and those who aid him should be ashamed. He is clearly trying to destroy me and break our resolve to fight for what is rightfully ours. 'Allowing his family to end up on the street is a despicable act and people will start to see what sort of a man he is.' Mr Young has told friends that he will prove he has genuinely lost his fortune, and is now unable to pay his wife the ã48,000-a-month maintenance she is seeking. Family Court judge Mrs Justice Parker has warned Mr Young that he will face a six-month jail term if he cannot account for his losses at the next hearing, on November 13.
That's a helluva article. I hate to see the kids become collateral damage in this modern day war of the roses, but the judge and legal system is absolutely right. Men should not be used as infinite ATM's, especially when the woman has screwed-and-dumped him, but that's the way this culture seems to want to operate.
this is the second time you've posted a link where you deleted the primary domain name and substituted **** in place. none of your links work so why bother posting the link?
Yes I did try to copy and paste the link a couple of times because it is not me that is substituting **** for daily-mail, but the system here. That's why I bothered. Edit: had to include hyphen in name above to avoid the *****
well just post the text from the article, because otherwise, we don't know what you are talking about.
Well if you jokers gave me half a chance I would have, but I was busy responding to posts whilst at the same time not knowing why the link did not appear. I've given you all you need to view the link: copy shortcut and correct name - end of story. Good day to you. Edit: The article has some good photos of the couple and his new girlfriend that I also thought others may have been interested in viewing.
I've often thought about getting married, it would be nice to be able to have sex any time you feel like it. Some times it sucks being single & having to go without from time to time. Maybe the threat of financial ruin from divorce is worth the "sex on demand"?