Hide and Seek

There was recently reported in the press a case of a man who won £50,000 playing Deal or no Deal on TV.

The winner spent the money in the space of 4 months, before the television show aired, as he was in the middle of a Divorce and wanted to make sure that his estranged wife “wouldn’t get a penny”.

The estranged wife apparently only found out about the winnings once the show aired but Mr Brown, the winner, had by then purchased a number of household items, a second hand X-type Jaguar car, a holiday in Mexico, an ipad etc.

Once discovered, the wife applied to court and an injunction was imposed to prevent Mr Brown spending any more of his winnings, if any remained.

Mr Brown will no doubt have to detail exactly what he spent the money on and there will, no doubt, now be argument about his financial conduct – although he did apparently use some of the money to pay off debts and paid for an electrician’s course, having been signed off work for “depression”.

Although Mr Brown’s conduct may be taken into account and the items purchased with the money potentially be divided between the parties, the reality is that a large part of the winnings have gone and the items reportedly purchased are unlikely to hold their value and are almost certainly far less useful to Mrs Brown than the capital that would have been available.

It highlights the importance of maintaining an eye on your spouse’s lifestyle and spending after separation and within the course of a Divorce. I am not talking about making a note of each time they do a food shop or the purchase a new toy for the children but if there is unusual and excessive spending (cars, holidays, expensive items etc.) then questions must be asked about how that is all being funded.

It also goes to show the lengths to which people will go in cases of Divorce to “deprive” the other from any share of what they perceive to be theirs.

This all against a backdrop of each spouse having a duty to provide full and frank disclosure of their financial position – that duty being an on-going one within proceedings and designed to help the parties (and the Court) ascertain what is available for distribution and what would be fair.

I imagine that Mr Brown will have achieved an increase in both his and his wife’s legal costs in determining their matter and an awful lot of ill-feeling between them – a sad state of affairs when you consider that the parties have 2 young children and will have to co-parent for some time to come.