Paris, France Apartment
. The parties currently hold joint title to an apartment located at Rue Duphot, 75001, Paris, France (the “Paris Apartment”). There is no mortgage on the Paris Apartment and neither party shall encumber the Paris Apartment without the express written consent of the other party. The Paris Apartment shall continue to be jointly owned by the parties, with each party having equal decision-making authority concerning the property, through an Event of Marital Dissolution. Upon the occurrence of an Event of Marital Dissolution, Alvina shall receive sole title, ownership and occupancy rights to the Paris Apartment and the contents thereof (excluding artwork, the disposition of which is covered in paragraph 6.9 herein) and Michael waives any rights therein and thereto. Michael shall execute all documents necessary to transfer title of the Paris Apartment to Alvina as soon as is practicable following an Event of Marital Dissolution (and shall be responsible for any and all taxes or other expenses associated with such transfer, if any) and Alvina shall retain sole and exclusive ownership of the property and shall be entitled to dispose of the property in any way she deems appropriate.”At the time of the PNA, the parties held jointly one apartment at Rue Duphot (“Rue Duphot (1)”), and there is no dispute that it goes to the wife under the PNA. It is agreed between the parties that she will retain that property. However, on 2 October 2017 a second apartment at Rue Duphot (“Rue Duphot (2)”) was purchased in joint names for €575,000 with a mortgage of €510,000. And on 16 October 2018 a third apartment at Rue Duphot (“Rue Duphot (3)”) was purchased in joint names for €870,000 with a mortgage of €600,000. Rue Duphot (2) and (3) adjoin Rue Duphot (1) and the three apartments are in the process of being knocked together to create one magnificent apartment.60.The wife’s case is that a reasonable interpretation of Article 6.3 is that its terms should cover any property adjoining Rue Duphot (1) which is purchased with the intention of conjoining Rue Duphot (1) with it. The problem with that interpretation is that the parties purchased the adjoining apartments in joint names. If they had intended them to be knocked together with Rue Duphot (1) they could easily have purchased those adjoining apartments in the wife’s sole name. At [40] above I set out the terms of Article 6.7 concerning future residences, which I repeat for convenience:“Any other residences which the parties choose to put in joint names (or hold title through an entity in which both parties are members or partners) shall be considered to be equally owned by the parties, with such property to be sold upon an Event of Marital Dissolution and the net proceeds of sale equally divided.”I cannot see how this does not exactly deal with Rue Duphot (2) and (3). The parties have agreed that these apartments will be retained by the wife. The value that the wife will receive under the PNA in relation to these apartments is half of their anticipated net proceeds of sale or €244,805, and that is the figure I will use in the Outcome Schedule. 61.As the wife will retain the apartments, she has to give credit for the value of the husband’s half share. The parties are agreed on which properties will be retained by the wife, and their advisers will bring into account all the relevant credits and debits when calculating the money or money’s worth to be provided to the wife by the husband under the PNA.
- Approved Judgment
- Mr Justice Mostyn:
- The correct entitlements of the wife under the modified PNA and their value
- The quantum of child support to be awarded to the wife for the benefit of the children, and whether the award should be secured.
- Background
- The PNA
- “EACH PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT FULLY UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT HE OR SHE IS RELINQUISHING VALUABLE PROPERTY RIGHTS BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT.”
- The disputes about the agreement
- Issues 1 & 2: The failure by the husband to set up the Joint Investment Fund
- Issue 3: The mortgage on Meadow Lane (1), Southampton, New York
- Southampton Residence
- Issues 4 & 5: Does the Modification Agreement cover Meadow Lane (2)?
- Future Residences
- Issues 6, 7, 8 & 9: Should the mortgage on the family home be taken at £18m or £16m?
- Issue 10: Is the wife entitled to a credit of half the net sale proceeds of 26 Downing Street?
- Issue 11: Should the wife be entitled to 100% or 50% of Rue Duphot Nos. 2 and 3?
- Paris, France Apartment
- Issue 12: Montfort
- Issue 13: Latent tax
- Issues 14 and 15: Should any of the wife’s legal costs paid by the husband be reimbursed to him?
- Legal Fees and Indemnification in Event of Suit to Enforce
- Issue 16: Disputed artwork
- Artwork
- Issue 17: Compensation for stolen jewellery
- Conclusion on the wife’s entitlements under the modified PNA
- £37,489,392
- £37,489,392
- The wife’s capital needs
- The reasonable annual income to be derived from the wife’s Duxbury fund
- £1,110,316
- The wife’s child maintenance claim
- the child is entitled to be brought up in circumstances which bear some sort of relationship with the father's current resources and the father's present standard of living.
- I accept, in accordance with authority, that the children should be able to have a lifestyle that is not entirely out of kilter with that enjoyed by them in Dubai and that enjoyed by HH and his family
- future
- This case: decision
- Conclusion
- Permission to appeal (“PTA”)
- SCHEDULE 1
