Cape Town - What began as a cross-continent love story has ended in an acrimonious divorce action, with the Western Cape High Court ordering two former lovers to finally go their separate ways.
Money and a dispute over an offshore investment pushed the 71-year-old ex-wife to haul her terminally ill 74-year-old ex-husband to the high court, with the court eventually decreeing the divorce, with each bearing their own legal costs.
“This highly acrimonious divorce action commenced with the plaintiff (wife) instituting proceedings against the defendant (husband) on March 7, 2016.
“Save for the contributions paid by the defendant towards the plaintiff’s costs, which she may retain, each party shall pay their own costs, including any reserved costs orders,” the court ordered.
The couple met in 2002 at a party in Tel Aviv, Israel, where the woman was residing permanently at the time.
They became romantically involved and the man persuaded her to move to South Africa with her younger daughter in 2003.
It was the third marriage for both of them when they tied the knot in September that year, out of community of property by ante-nuptial contract.
The main issues before the high court was whether the woman was entitled to maintenance; whether the man had discharged his obligation in terms of the ante-nuptial contract to pay his ex $40 000 (R728 528), and who was the rightful owner of $100 000 previously held in escrow in a Wells Fargo bank account, and currently held in trust by the woman’s attorneys.
After several disputes over the value of each estate, the woman was granted R50 000 in maintenance, while the man was ordered to pay the $40 000, while the $100 000 would remain with the woman.
The court said it was common cause that when the parties married in 2003 the plaintiff owned an immovable property in Tiberius, Israel, and that in 2008 she sold that property and transferred $100 000 of the proceeds to a Swiss bank account held by the defendant.
During her evidence the plaintiff did not attempt to conceal the fact that in 2014/15, when the parties were arguing over money, she successfully contrived a scheme to deceive the defendant into paying that sum to her under the pretext of a loan to (the daughter) in the US.
The defendant transferred $84 000 from his Swiss account to (the daughter), with the plaintiff transferring $16 000 to (the daughter) from funds paid by the defendant into her Hapoalim account.
The plaintiff opened (it seems) the Wells Fargo savings account and (the daughter) then transferred the monies to that account.
“Accordingly, even if I were to find that the plaintiff should not benefit from her fraud, this would not relieve the defendant of his obligation to pay $100 000 to her from another source.
“In my view the only practical way of resolving this is to order that the plaintiff is entitled to the $100 000 currently held in trust by her attorneys,” the court ruled.
Cape Times