A woman in her 20s has claimed in the High Court that she is entitled to a share of the proceeds from the sale of a house she shares with an Irish businessman in his late 60s.
She claims in court that she married him a few years ago.
The court heard the woman say that for legal reasons the parties, who cannot be named for legal reasons, married in their early 20s after church services and community service in their home country outside the European Union.
The court heard the man challenged the validity of their marriage.
The woman, represented by John Temple Bl, says she met the man while he was in her home country.
The non-EU national, now in her 20s, said she found the man loving and kind to her.
They married a few months after being introduced to each other.
However, she claims that shortly after their marriage, the man began dating other girls, some of whom were as young as 13 or 14.
While polygamous unions are recognized in her home country, she claims the husband’s actions have put a significant strain on their relationship.
As a result, she claims the two have reconciled and relocated from their home country to Ireland, where they have been living for the last few years.
While things went well for a time, she claims that the problems in their relationship have resurfaced.
She claims things took a turn for the worse between them after she found him lying naked on his bed while he was on a video call with a woman she said was also naked.
She claims he was arrogant towards her, starting removing interior locks from doors, yelling at her to leave the house, and locking all exterior doors and windows, leaving her unable to leave the property for days.
On another occasion, she claims she overheard the man speaking via another video call to his former wife, again nude, who she said was younger than the plaintiff.
She claims that during this conversation he said that he was ridiculing the applicant, that he was doing nothing for her and that he had kept her passport under lock and key.
Eventually she left the family home and was offered a place to stay by a family.
She also claims she obtained a protective order from the district court against the man after he began sending her several unwarranted and inappropriate communications.
During these hearings, the man claims that their marriage was not recognized in Ireland.
At the High Court, John Temple Bl said for the woman that she had successfully brought an action in her home country’s Supreme Court to have her marriage recognized there.
She is in the process of having the marriage recognized and registered in that jurisdiction by the Irish Circuit Court.
She alleges that after learning of the decision of the courts in the woman’s home country, the man decided to sell the family home in Ireland.
She claims property falls under the Family Home Protection Act 1976 and cannot be sold without her consent.
Last week, the Supreme Court granted the woman a restraining order preventing the man from selling the home until she agrees.
She also obtained an injunction preventing the husband’s solicitor from passing on the proceeds of a sale to anyone, including the applicant, until her application for marriage recognition in Ireland was completed.
The matter was briefly raised before Ms Judge Eileen Roberts during Thursday’s High Court session.
The judge was informed by Mr Temple that the house had been sold.
His client had no problem with that as the sale appeared to have been completed before the warrant was issued against the man, but she was concerned about the proceeds from the sale.
Aware of the court’s order, the man had explained in an email to the woman’s lawyers that the proceeds of the sale would remain with a lawyer whom the man claims is representing him.
The attorney said that while the attorney named by the man in the email was of the highest integrity and “above reproach,” his client was concerned they would not hear from that particular attorney yet.
The lawyer said there were fears anything the man said would have to be taken “with a grain of salt” and was not present or represented in court when the case was called.
Ms Justice Roberts took note of the complainant’s concerns.
She adjourned the matter to later this month with an order to remain where she was.
The judge also expressed the court’s desire for formal contact to be made with the man’s attorney before the case is next heard in court.
https://www.independent.ie/news/woman-20s-claims-entitlement-to-proceeds-of-sale-of-house-she-shared-with-businessman-60s-as-they-married-several-years-ago-41992538.html Woman (age 20) claims claim to proceeds from sale of house she shared with businessman (age 60) when they married ‘some years ago’