Less money for the ex? One man spent $32k on hair transplant before his divorce

Some divorcing couples think the best way to deprive their ex-spouses of more money is to splurge on themselves first, such as a man who went for a $32,000 hair transplant shortly before the split.

In addition to that costly patch-up work, the 47-year-old man spent about $8,700 to fix his teeth, over $30,000 for knee surgery and another $4,000 for physiotherapy as well as treatment for sports-related injuries.

He could afford to splurge on himself because he is a managing director at a multinational investment bank and earns a monthly income of about $37,500. His ex-wife, 43, also works in a bank and draws a monthly income of about $18,000.

But antics to deplete the matrimonial funds by going on an expensive and extensive spending spree will usually backfire and prove costly because all the aggrieved parties need to do is complain that they do not agree with the expenses that are not run-of-the-mill living costs.

If the court agrees that the expenses are not reasonable, the parties who splurge on non-essential items will be ordered to account for the amount spent, which will be added back to the matrimonial pool for sharing.

The total amount of $74,700 that the man spent on himself in this case was deemed as his personal expenses that would come out of his pocket to be shared. This meant that his ex-wife would be given a percentage of this sum.

How he spent a big bonus

The man’s expenses came to light because his ex-wife accused him of hiding his annual bonus, which amounted to more than $200,000. This was because on average, his monthly expenses would be around $24,000 and this meant that he would be able to save about $12,000 every month.

His bank statements recorded the monthly surpluses but not his annual bonus, which amounted to about six months of his salary.

The husband denied hiding anything because he said he had spent his bonus on personal grooming, medical treatment and other non-essential items. This caused his ex-wife to cry foul as all these expenses were done without her consent.

For instance, the husband made inquiries and booked the appointment for his hair implant treatment some two months before he commenced divorce proceedings. He then spent about $32,000 for the treatment when divorce proceedings had already commenced.

After he moved out of the matrimonial home, he also bought a piano for about $6,200. He claimed he needed a piano so that his daughter could use it when she spends time with him.

He had wanted to retrieve the existing piano from the matrimonial home, but he claimed his ex-wife refused to let him have it.

But the ex-wife said their daughter had discontinued piano lessons by that time, so he had no reason to buy the expensive piano, which was probably acquired for his own use. She added that she had not prohibited him from retrieving the current piano, which was worth only about $300.

As a result, Justice Choo Han Teck said the expenses for the hair transplant and the piano would be returned to the matrimonial pool. The man also had to return about $138,000 in other expenses that were paid for with his bonus.

He had spent about $44,000 on treatment for his teeth and physical injuries, and $94,000 on his legal fees.

Wife’s unusual fund transfers

After the divorce action started, the wife transferred close to $200,000 out of her bank accounts within two days.

One of the transfers was for $120,000, which she said was the balance of the sales proceeds of her father’s HDB flat. She said she had been holding this sum for him because he is “a compulsive gambler and spendthrift”.

As for the other sum, she said she had meant to give this amount as “allowances” to her father.

While Justice Choo found nothing untoward in the $120,000 transfer as there was the sale of her father’s flat, he did not believe the other sum was meant for the elderly man’s expenses.

In particular, the judge took note of the WhatsApp conversation between the couple that stated the wife had reduced her parents’ allowance from $650 to $200 a month. As such sums would not add up to $78,000, the judge ordered her to return all of it to the matrimonial pool.

The husband also accused his ex-wife of trying to stash $100,000 away by using a fake business deal with her friend.

The wife claimed she had a 50 per cent stake in her friend’s café and that poor business had left both of them with a loss of about $200,000. This meant that she had to cough out $100,000 as her share of the loss.

But there were no formal records nor transfer of shares that supported the wife’s claim.

Justice Choo found it odd that the wife and her friend did not put their equal partnership in writing to record the initial payment of the investment. That would mean that the friend essentially “gifted” 50 per cent of the cafe to the wife because if the business had made money, the wife would have received 50 per cent of the profits for free.

 The judge agreed with the husband’s view that the deal was “absurd”. Even if the transfer of $100,000 was a genuine investment, the husband did not want any share of the cafe.

So Justice Choo ruled that the wife had to return the $100,000 to the pool for sharing. She also had to return another $18,000 that was spent on renovating her mother’s new flat as this sum was spent without the consent of her ex-husband.

Gifts between spouses

Gifts from spouses are usually not included in the split unless the items are worth a lot.

In this case, the husband wanted to add the $12,000 that he had spent on jewellery for his ex-wife to the matrimonial pool because gifts purchased during the marriage would usually be considered as matrimonial assets.

But the wife argued that the value of such items was insignificant when compared to their total assets of over $8 million. Moreover, the value of the jewellery would have dropped over time due to regular use.

She added that she had reciprocated such gifts by purchasing numerous valuable presents for her ex-husband during the marriage and these included expensive ties and a wallet.

In the end, all these gifts were not included in the split because the husband did not dispute that he had received presents from his ex-wife who did not ask for these items to be counted.

After considering the couple’s contributions to their marriage, Judge Choo found that the split would be done in the final ratio of 53 to 47 in the husband’s favour. He would receive about $4.2 million from the pool while his ex-wife would get about $3.8 million.

If there is a lesson from this case, it is that efforts by warring couples to squirrel away funds are usually futile because most financial transactions leave behind a paper trail that is hard to erase.

Ultimately, honesty is still the best policy simply because those caught dissipating funds can end up losing more as the courts have the discretion to award higher shares to their ex-spouses.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: LawNet 4.0 now available 4 weeks’ jail for project manager who sought confidential info from DSTA employee