Less money for the ex?

Moves to deplete matrimonial funds by splurging usually backfire and prove costly

- Tan Ooi Boon Invest Editor

Some divorcing couples think the best way to deprive their exspouses of more money is to splurge on themselves first, such as a man who went for a $32,000 hair transplant shortly before the split.

In addition to that costly patch-up work, the 47-year-old man spent about $8,700 to fix his teeth, over $30,000 for knee surgery and another $4,000 for physiotherapy as well as treatment for sports-related injuries.

He could afford to splurge on himself because he is a managing director at a multinational investment bank and earns a monthly income of about $37,500. His ex-wife, 43, also works in a bank and draws a monthly income of about $18,000.

But antics to deplete the matrimonial funds by going on an expensive and extensive spending spree will usually backfire and prove costly because all the aggrieved parties need to do is complain that they do not agree with the expenses that are not run-of-the-mill living costs.

If the court agrees that the expenses are not reasonable, the parties who splurge on nonessential items will be ordered to account for the amount spent, which will be added back to the matrimonial pool for sharing.

The total amount of $74,700 that the man spent on himself in this case was deemed as his personal expenses that would come out of his pocket to be shared. This meant that his ex-wife would be given a percentage of this sum.

The man's expenses came to light because his ex-wife accused him of hiding his annual bonus, which amounted to more than $200,000. This was because on average, his monthly expenses would be around $24,000 and this meant that he would be able to save about $12,000 every month.

His bank statements recorded the monthly surpluses but not his annual bonus, which amounted to about six months of his salary.