Woman who struck up a relationship with older businessman wins big in court battle


Single mother, 30, who struck up a relationship with a rich MUCH older man gets to keep $87,000, a Mercedes and jewelry he demanded back when they broke up – having showered her with $913,000 over four years

  • Single mother can keep Mercedes, cash and jewelry from older businessman 
  • The man lodged a court challenge to get the items back when the pair broke up  
  • They met at  a luxury car dealership and began a four-year relationship 
  • The US-Australian citizen would visit her whenever he traveled to Adelaide 










A woman who struck up a relationship with a businessman while he browsed luxury cars will get to keep $87,000, a Mercedes, and jewelry.

The woman, now 37, met the 63-year-old dual American-Australian dual citizen at an Adelaide car dealership in 2014, the South Australian Supreme Court heard.

The pair then embarked on a four-and-a-half year relationship, during which the man transferred $913,051 into the woman’s account to pay for her ‘living expenses’ and her son’s school fees.

A woman can keep $87,000 in cash a Mercedes and jewelry after her relationship with a much older jet-setting businessman collapsed (stock image)

A woman can keep $87,000 in cash a Mercedes and jewelry after her relationship with a much older jet-setting businessman collapsed (stock image) 

Owning houses in Potts Point in Sydney and Pebble Beach, California, the man would also frequently travel to Queensland and to Adelaide up to nine times a year.

At one point, the woman was given a ring leading her to claim they were in a de-facto relationship, though the man argued this was merely to deter other men from approaching the woman.

After their relationship broke down in 2018, he claimed that recent transfers of $87,000 in cash along with a Mercedes, furniture, and jewelry be returned to him, prompting the woman to mount a legal challenge.

But the Supreme Court in South Australia ruled the woman could keep the car, cash, and jewelry. 

‘The applicant transferred large sums of money into the respondent’s bank account, which allowed her to rent a house for herself… cut back on her hours of work, pay for her son’s school fees, and lead a more affluent lifestyle,’ the court ruled.

The woman argued the car was a Valentine’s Day gift and the cash should not be given back as the applicant had agreed to support her financially. 

The man gave the woman a luxury Mercedes but demanded the car be returned when the couple broke up, saying the item was a loan and not a gift (stock image)

The man gave the woman a luxury Mercedes but demanded the car be returned when the couple broke up, saying the item was a loan and not a gift (stock image) 

The woman tendered a letter to court she claimed backed up her claims, detailing how the man would setup a ‘house account’ with a few hundred thousand dollars and put a house and car under her name.

‘All of this is to ensure that you never, ever, have to be concerned if something happens to us just how you would cope,’ the letter reads.

However, the court found the pair were never in a de-facto relationship and the woman was not entitled to any more than the disputed cash, car, and jewelry

The judge found they both repeatedly lied to one another and did not introduce each other to their friends and family. 

The man would travel between Australia and the United States where he owned a house at Pebble Beach in California (pictured)

The man would travel between Australia and the United States where he owned a house at Pebble Beach in California (pictured)

She told him she was studying law during their relationship – a claim she repeated under oath but was dismissed by the judge.

The man did not revealed to her his actual age, which she only found out during court proceedings.

She also was not aware of what the man’s job was.

‘The applicant never explained to the respondent what he did; it appears that she never had a clear idea of how he earned his money, how much he earned, or what his major assets were,’ the court ruled.

The judgement concluded the couple’s relationship was more ‘superficial’ rather than based on any long-term commitment. 

Advertisement



Source link

Spread the love

Written by bourbiza

Brady is implementing some of his Patriots style into Tampa’s offense

Kyle Rittenhouse’s ex-lawyer: prosecution ‘knew they would lose and were making a political point’