Freed Husband 1 Bitter Ex-Wife 0

A HUSBAND who spent thousands of dollars on prostitutes and massages does not have to pay it back to his wife, the Family Court has ruled.
The wife, 58, claimed her husband "wasted" the money on brothels and holidays to the Philippines after 24 years of marriage and asked the court to order him to pay it back into the family purse so that it was part of matrimonial assets to be split between them.
But Justice Peter Rose, sitting in the court in Sydney, has said that the husband had met his obligations to his wife, looked after their three children and was free to spend his income on what he wanted.
Justice Rose said the husband, 58, had begun seeing prostitutes after a payout of more than $1.4 million in 2007 from an horrific car crash several years earlier that left him with serious injuries.
By then the couple had split.

*Daily Telegraph*
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/new...-1225884010638

Even some of the comments on this article were priceless:

"If he has already paid for a professional why should he pay an amateur who isn't doing the job anymore anyway?"

Justice Rose said the husband, 58, had begun seeing prostitutes after a payout of more than $1.4 million in 2007 from an horrific car crash several years earlier that left him with serious injuries.
By then the couple had split. Originally Posted by Mssppislm

Interesting. The implication here is that he started seeing prostitutes after they'd separated. The decision might have been different if the PI payout and mongering had taken place while they were still living as husband and wife.

And of course, this is a foreign decision, with no precedential value in US courts.

Cheers,

bcg