The high society couple’s bitter $15 million divorce battle goes beyond the grave as they fight over who gets the side-by-side burials
- Bitter torque split estimated $15 million fortune
- They refuse to ‘lay side by side forever’
A wealthy Sydney couple had such a bitter divorce that they refused to be buried next to each other.
The high society couple, who split an estimated $15 million after 21 years of marriage, could only agree on one thing when dividing their money.
“I … accept that the parties now do not want to lie side by side forever,” Judge Robert Harper told the Family Court of Australia.
The bitter couple – whose names are not allowed to be mentioned for legal reasons – agreed on only one thing: that they did not want to be buried next to each other.
This left the court to determine what to do with the adjoining burial grounds that the couple had already purchased in a Sydney cemetery, The Daily Telegraph reported.
Both plots were in the man’s name, so the woman suggested that he be buried elsewhere.
The man disputed this, so the judge ordered that one of the plots should be put in the woman’s name so that the bitter couple could settle it themselves.
“There was no doubt that both properties could be sold,” Judge Harper told the court.
‘I will therefore order the man to transfer one plot to the woman. Both parties can then dispose of their plot as they see fit.’
The couple, who cannot be legally identified, married in 1983 but separated in 2004.
By 2018, their split had become so vile that they took action against each other in the Family Court of Australia.
The court heard their “substantial” property pool was worth $15 million, including a $10 million Sydney pad.
The pair had to split an estimated $15 million fortune, including a Sydney property worth $10 million
But the couple disagreed on how much the house should cost if it didn’t meet the reserve price at auction.
“The husband proposed an arrangement under which the sale price would be reduced by 10 percent after the expiration of each three-month period after the property was privately put up for sale,” Judge Harper told the court.
“The woman proposed an injunction that the parties would, in effect, agree to recommendations of price adjustment by the selling broker,” he said.
The judge sided with the woman in the argument.
“I believe that a form of injunction that broadly corresponds to the woman’s proposal is more realistic and allows for a sale of the property at a price that is more in line with the market,” he told the court.
He directed that the house be put up for sale with a reserve price of $10 million and if it did not sell, it would have to be put up for sale in a private agreement until sold.