Imerman case: Ex-spouse can lie but can’t steal

“Covertly found assets no longer valid in divorce robbed women of protection previously afforded to them and declared the result a cheat's charter. ‘Wives have until now been allowed to produce an ace from their sleeve: a document proving the husband had lied about his finances was admissible even if improperly obtained,’ they said. The erstwhile husband said: ‘I was determined that my private papers could not be stolen and the perpetrators get away with it without retribution’… There was also the possibility that some of the defendants had committed criminal offences under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Data Protection Act 1998. The court thought that this sort of ‘unregulated self-help’ in divorce proceedings couldn't be condoned.”

For the full judgment, click on this link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2010/jul/30/imermam-judgment-divorce-assets. For the news: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2010/jul/30/divorce-imerman.

This principle seems “fair” to spouses who are filthy rich and the proceeding is a way to get even with the other. I could picture spouses hiring people like Leonardo DiCaprio in Inception. While you are at it, why not go the extra mile and plant an idea into the other’s mind to give away all his assets to you? Think about it.

However, to the financially dependent single parent, this decision is a potential disaster. The arrogant and rich spouse (A&RS) could afford the available means to hire better lawyers and conceal all the information regarding his assets.

The Lords in this case may have lost their “understandings” (more appropriate word should be “minds”) against the reasonable man/woman on the street. From my understanding of their decision, now the aggrieved spouse (AS) not only being financially at a disadvantage, sometimes ripped-off from her deserving share in the matrimonial assets, or being driven out of the matrimonial home, has to ask the A&RS politely, “Pardon me, sir. Would you let me have all the declarations of your assets, please?” The Lords expected the A&RS to reply, “Why yes, it is my pleasure. Here, take it so you can claim as much as you need.” Yeah, right. See what I mean?

The AS is penalized for “stealing” the documents whereas the A&RS received sympathy even though he lied to the court i.e. refused to disclose all the assets. What skulduggery! I am not referring to the AS but to the A&RS.

My plea to all: don’t ever let this kind of principle be established in Malaysia. It would be a heyday for every A&RS. The dawn of injustice to single mothers with children to feed. Get an alternative. Each spouse should get his/her OWN burglar-proof and C4-proof safe. If you are rich enough to own assets, then getting a safe should not be a problem. Just remember NOT to use the wedding date as the access code.

If you are one of those who leave everything around the house waiting for your other half to pick up after you, yet continue to do so after reading this, then you do not deserve to keep any of the matrimonial assets.