Court blasts ex-wife who left £2.5m home with unflushed toilets

Thursday 27 January 2022

The Royal Court has blasted a divorcee’s behaviour as “deplorable” after she left a “filthy” £2.5m home to her ex-husband filled with rubbish, rotting meat, unflushed toilets and a stench of cat urine – as well as removing the Aga, lights and smoke alarms.

The pair, who had been married for more than 20 years, split in 2016.

As part of a “clean break” divorce settlement, the court ordered in 2019 that the wife should hand over the £2.5m Jersey property that had been their matrimonial home, two in the UK, and a Lamborghini Murcielago, Ferrari Scuderia and a Morris Traveller.

It further ordered that the woman make a lump sum payment of £3m, and that a pension scheme be wound up, enabling £274,000 to be transferred to the husband.

But, the ex-husband argued, those expectations were not met – and the property’s condition was far from how it appeared in an estate agent’s brochure, which described it as a unique country dwelling that had that had “recently undergone a superior luxury transformation.”

Pictured: The ex-husband brought a complaint about the state of the property to the Royal Court.

He claimed that, on his ex’s instruction, one of her employees wouldn’t hand over the keys until long after the property had been vacated.

In that time, he said that the electricity supply had been cut off, allowing severe damp to build up and freezers containing raw meat to defrost, causing a “bio hazard”.

He added that the property was “soiled and filthy throughout”, noting that there were smoke marks on the walls, “substantial quantities of rubbish” left there, and that carpets were “badly soiled and stank of cat urine”.

According to the ex-husband “lavatories were deliberately fouled and left unflushed”. He also asserted that a person had broken slates on the coach house roof.

Further to this, he said his ex-wife had removed “all fixtures and fittings”, including the Aga, bespoke curtains said to be worth more than £30,000, fridges, wall mounted televisions, light fittings, bayonet fitted light bulbs, the washing machine and tumble dryer, and even smoke alarms.

In a case heard in November by the Royal Court, whose judgment was only made public this week, the husband argued that such “wanton vandalism” had made the property unmarketable and that he had missed a window of opportunity to sell it that summer.

He also told the Court that some prospective purchasers had expressed concerns about the loss of the Aga. Had he gone ahead with a sale before making any repairs to the home, it would have been at a “very substantial” undervalue, he claimed.

Through Advocate Philip Sinel, he argued that he should be entitled to £110,020 for the work undertaken to repair the home, and replace the missing fittings.

Responding via Advocate Hiren Mistry, the ex-wife said that the damage was “not admitted in its entirely [sic]”, which the Court took to mean that she was responsible for at least some of it. 

While she had argued that she had only taken items from the home that belonged to her, the Court found that she was not entitled to take all fixtures and fittings. 

Presided over by Commissioner Sir William Bailhache, sitting with Jurats Charles Blampied and Robert Christensen, the Royal Court however found that the ex-wife shouldn’t have to pay for maintenance works carried out by the ex-husband that “could have been necessary at any time”, such as some repainting that had been done.

Noting that the home was sold on for £2.8m in 2021, the Court said that the man should  “inevitably have anticipated carrying out such marginal improvements to it as any intending vendor would carry out in order to maximise a sale price.”

It agreed, however, that his ex-wife “undoubtedly did prejudice any early sale of the property by the removal of some fixtures, fittings and effects which she was not entitled to remove, and this contributed to the delay and expense incurred… in getting the property ready for sale.”

Taking this into account, the Royal Court decided he should receive £15,000 in compensation.

It also agreed that the ex-wife should cover the cost of £10,315-worth of unpaid bills that the ex-husband had had to pay in order to release the luxury cars owed to him.

Interest was added to those payments, alongside other late payments made following the original divorce settlement, as a form of damages.

However, the Royal Court disagreed that the woman owed her ex-husband a portion of rental income she earned during February and March on the two UK properties the pair used to jointly own, and rejected the view that should cover the cost of a £1,215 replacement Bosch microwave at one of them.

The judgment added that the Court’s opinion was that both parties should bear their own legal costs.

While blasting the woman’s conduct as “deplorable”, the Court said that the man had made a number of claims which were “not justified and which have undoubtedly caused expense”, for which his ex-wife should bear no responsibility.