EXCLUSIVE
A man’s offer to have an engagement ring and other gifts of love returned has sparked a surprising countersuit alleging that he is a love rat interested in transgender videos, court documents allege.
Builder Constantinos Hatzis filed a lawsuit in Victoria County Court against his former partner in February. Anastasia Soulios.
He demands the return of $101,035 in jewelry he claims she lost when they separated in May 2022.
But Soulios responded by claiming his ex was not entitled to the return of the “gifts” and said he ruined their relationship with his infidelity before leaving her, according to court documents.
The ugly dispute will be aired in open court unless the couple agrees to resolve the matter during a mediation session in the coming weeks.
The beautician described a pattern of allegedly disturbing behavior by her ex-partner in Ms Soulios’ defense letter, written by her lawyers, KPA Lawyers.
“Between early 2022 and mid-2022 (Ms. Soulios) discovered on approximately three occasions the phone numbers of sex workers stored in (Mr. Hatzis’s) phone contacts,” Ms. Soulios’ attorney wrote in a letter from written defense.
Anastasia Soulios and Constantinos Hatzis in happier times
“In or around September 2021, while the parties were in a domestic relationship, (Ms. Soulios) was contacted by a woman in Asia named Thu Hang Ha (Amanda) with whom (Mr. Hatzis) had been having an affair. “, documents the court. fixed.
Ms. Soulios doubled down on the accusations, claiming in court papers that Hatzis had also pursued a secret interest in transsexuals.
“In or around mid-2022, she discovered a series of searches on (Mr. Hatzis’) YouTube account for explicit transgender content,” the court documents add.
Ms Soulious claimed to have found further evidence of infidelity, including location data indicating he was at the Chadstone Hotel between 7.08pm and 8.42pm on three occasions, just before they split. according to court documents.
Soulios also claimed that Hatzis once threatened her with a knife during sex.
“On or about May 28, 2020 (Mr. Hatzis) used a knife without consent during sexual intercourse with her and cut her skin,” Ms. Soulios stated in court documents.
He also claimed in court documents that a photo of him was taken the next day as evidence of the alleged incident.
Hatzis sparked a bitter legal dispute when he claimed that Soulios would only have been entitled to keep her engagement ring and “gifts” if he had gone ahead with the marriage.
The builder claimed to have gifted his bride-to-be a diamond pear halo ring, diamond earrings and a bracelet at their engagement in March 2022.
“Hatzis gave Soulios the property on the implied condition that Soulios would keep it securely and return it to Hatzis upon his request in the event they did not marry,” the statement of claim said.
The engagement ring that sparked the ugly legal stir
Constantinos Hatzis and the TAG monitor that his ex-partner wants to return
The couple separated the following month, but when he asked his ex-partner to return the ring, he was told it had been broken, according to the letter.
“In breach of the implied condition, Soulios failed to store the goods securely and failed to return them to Hatzis when requested,” he told the court.
In his defense, Soulios claimed that the earrings and bracelet had actually been given to him at Christmas the previous year.
A photograph of the items taken on December 26 that year allegedly supported his claim, the court was told.
Ms Soulios maintained that the ring and jewelery were all “unconditional gifts” given before their “engagement agreement”.
To end her defense, Ms. Soulios asked her ex-partner to return a TAG watch valued at $9,500 that she had given him as an engagement gift in anticipation of their marriage.
When contacted by AgeMr. H.Atzis denied ever having an affair or abusing Ms Soulios while they were engaged.
He stated that his ex-wife would attest to his fidelity before the court.
“I have been married for 20 years and my (ex) wife will testify that I was never unfaithful to her,” Hatzis told the newspaper.
“Everything will be known in court.”
