An entrepreneur who moved a Playboy model into the luxurious condo he shared with his ex-wife during their messy divorce has lost a bid to take a bigger chunk of their fortune.
45-year-old Richard Rothschild was handed just £ 26,000 last year, which he said left him ‘penniless’ compared to the millions awarded to Charmaine de Souza, 46.
Mrs. de Souza was given £ 1.73 million – 95 percent of the family assets – as well as their £ 2.3 million Miami condo.
Mr. Rothschild claimed the verdict was “unfair” and left him with “basically no capital and no income at all.”
But a judge today dismissed his appeal and upheld the original ruling, which divided the money so unevenly because of Mr. Rothschild’s actions and the rampant spending on legal bills during their divorce.
Richard Rothschild, 45, (pictured with Playboy model Sherra Michelle) was paid just £ 26,000 last year, which he claims was left ‘penniless’ compared to the millions awarded to 46-year-old Charmaine de Souza
Mrs. de Souza was given £ 1.73 million – 95 percent of their net worth – as well as their £ 2.3 million Miami condo
The court heard that the couple had enjoyed a ‘very good’ lifestyle together – Mr Rothschild drove a Lamborghini and they also enjoyed the expensive apartment in an exclusive apartment building in Miami Beach (pictured)
The court heard that the couple had enjoyed a ‘very good’ lifestyle together – Mr Rothschild drove a Lamborghini, and they also enjoyed the expensive apartment in an exclusive Miami Beach apartment building.
They had met as a college student in 2005 and together ran a successful telecom company in London.
But after their split in 2016, they clashed in court two years later when Mr. Rothschild moved his then-girlfriend, Playboy model Sherra Michelle, into the couple’s apartment.
It led to a bid from Ms de Souza to jail him for contempt of court and saw Mr Rothschild incur over £ 1 million in legal bills during their divorce.
Last December, Mr. Justice Cohen scolded Mr. Rothschild for conducting the “most destructive lawsuit.”
He said the entrepreneur ‘brought it’ [the ruling] in itself “because of the” massive and unnecessary bleeding of money to pay for this lawsuit. ”
Lord Justice Moylan today upheld the December order, claiming it had been ‘just’ and ‘fair’.
Mr. Rothschild (left) moved Playboy model Sherra Michelle (right) into the apartment he once shared with his wife and children, after their split
The appellate judge said the woman had outlined numerous ways in which her ex-husband’s behavior had “negatively impacted the family’s financial circumstances,” reducing the number yet to be divided.
It included ‘willful and willful’ overspending, ‘destructive behavior’ that diminished the value of their fortunes and his’ persistent refusal to participate appropriately ‘in the lawsuit by making hopeless requests and failing to follow orders,’ making costs unnecessary with a huge amount. ‘
Lord Justice Moylan added that “the husband recognized that the impact of the breakup of the marriage had led him to stray from the path of reason and at times focused on peripheral rather than fundamental aspects of the procedure.”
He noted that the spouse has “no current income” and added that he “has not taken any steps to achieve one,” although as a natural entrepreneur he is likely to thrive in the future.
Mrs. de Souza had a 21-year relationship with Mr. Rothschild after meeting as a student and married in 2005
Shown here in Miami, Mrs. De Souza has two young daughters with Mr. Rothschild
He said Mr Justice Cohen described the man’s lifestyle as ‘extraordinary’ after the split.
Mr. Rothschild had ‘spent his time traveling the world’ claiming that it was in the family’s financial interest that, rather than trying to make money, it was better ‘that he keep his non-domiciled tax status and leads a luxurious life on the Airmiles’ back.
The judge noted that it was ‘difficult to follow the logic,’ added Lord Justice Moylan.
He quoted Mr Justice Cohen saying, ‘Clearly this has been the most destructive lawsuit. It cannot be denied that the spouse is largely responsible for the situation that has arisen.
“Since the breakup of the marriage, he has acted destructively and throughout the trial without regard to normal rules … the husband did this to himself.”
For the husband, Patrick Chamberlayne QC argued that the “ central problem ” with the divorce judgment was that Mr. Justice Cohen made it clear that he did not take into account Mr. Rothschild’s behavior and based his decision on the former couple’s financial needs.
However, the judge must have taken into account the man’s behavior, as that would be the only way to explain such an even distribution of the couple’s wealth, he said.
Lord Justice Moylan dismissed the appeal, saying, “It is clear … that the judge had a right to take into account the husband’s trial behavior.
The amount spent on legal fees would have been a modest fraction of this had the man not acted.
“I do not accept Mr. Chamberlayne’s statement that the difference in outcome cannot be justified in this case.
‘I do not accept that behavior cannot lead to a party receiving less than it needs. It can be clearly justified.
The judge could rightly conclude that the resources allocated to the woman were no more than sufficient to meet her needs, both in the short and long term.
He was equally entitled to conclude that the amount allocated to the spouse, also taking into account the prospects of the spouse and other material factors such as his behavior, was a proper part of the estate and was sufficient to needs. which was fair to him in the circumstances of this case. ‘
Lord Justice Moylan dismissed the appeal, also upholding a previous ruling that a debt of £ 610,000 to Mr Rothschild’s mother, Wanda, was unlikely to be enforced by her.
“The inequality between the parties is therefore not as great as Mr Chamberlayne’s,” he said.
Lord Justice Newey and Lord Justice Patten agreed with Lord Justice Moylan’s ruling and the appeal was dismissed.