A husband agreed to present his spouse their $14million house however she needed extra from the divorce and took him to courtroom… now she’s very a lot regretting it

A Sydney woman’s bid to double her assets to $31million in her divorce case has backfired spectacularly, as she must now pay more than $1.4million to her husband. 

The pair had been battling over tens of millions in assets, including large properties, luxury cares, shares and art, in the Family Court of Australia.

They initially agreed to split their assets with 53 per cent going to the wife, the Daily Telegraph reported. 

The agreement would have seen her walk away with a mortgage-free, $14million home. 

However, the wife was not satisfied and she launched an appeal claiming her husband was hiding $17million in shares and had ‘failed in his disclosure obligations to a deplorable extent’.

Had her appeal been successful she could have walked away with about $31million in assets. 

Her assumption about her husband’s wealth turned out to be incorrect when a forensic financial report showed that in less than five years, he had lost $10million on the share market. 

He told the court the real value of his shares was $3million.

Had the wife’s appeal been successful she could have walked away with about $31million in assets

The court also heard that he owed about $2million in taxes from one year when he had a gross income of more than $6million.

The court re-assessed the value of all the couple’s assets and the new figure it arrived at was substantially lower. 

As a result, the court ruled that the wife would actually have to pay her husband more than $1.4million.

She may now have to sell her $14million property in order to make the payment within the court-ordered 60 days. 

Justice Robert Harper told the court it was ‘probably not realistic nor is it just and equitable’ for her to keep the property.

The wife did have some rulings in her favour, however. The court found her husband had spent excessively when, before their asset split was finalised, he spent almost $1million on a wedding to his new wife. 

The husband had told the court it was ‘reasonable for him to mark the start of a new chapter in his life with a “sliver” of happiness, after ending “an acrimonious marriage”’. 

But the judge disagreed, saying that spending so much money on the wedding before the assets were split was far in excess of what he needed to do to ‘get on with his life’. 

The husband was also ordered to repay more than $500,000 in assets he had given to his new wife, including $300,000 cash and a $200,000 car.