Craig Whyte ordered to pay estranged wife £5000 a month

[Zappa 0]

Rangers owner Craig Whyte has been ordered to pay his estranged wife £5000 a month after failing to send her money.

 

Kim Whyte went to court to secure the interim aliment and other measures in a motion against the Rangers owner after the date for payment passed.

 

At the Court of Session on Thursday, Lynda Brabender, counsel for Mrs Whyte, told Lord Tyre she was seeking an order for payment by Mr Whyte at the rate of £5000 a month.

 

She said a motion in the matrimonial proceedings had been scheduled to call earlier this year but an agreement was reached between the parties.

 

She said Mrs Whyte had signed the agreement on February 8 and it was sent to her husband. The owner of the Ibrox club that was plunged into administration last month later signed the agreement but initially failed to have it witnessed.

 

Further procedure was carried out and earlier this month an email was sent by his lawyers saying that he had promised to put it in the post, although it later appeared to have gone astray. The counsel said it was learnt last week that "in any event the defender was not willing to adhere to the agreement".

 

She said: "The first payment in terms of the minute of agreement was made not as required on February 12, but on February 13. The next payment was due on March 10. The defender has not made any payment." Miss Brabender added that Mrs Whyte had provided details of her income and expenditure in the proceedings. She added that by contrast Mr Whyte had provided no information about financial resources, income or capital.

 

She said it was in that context that the earlier minute of agreement had been reached. The counsel said the court should have regard to the needs and resources of the parties in considering spousal interim aliment.

 

Miss Brabender added: "The fact that the parties reached an agreement, albeit unenforceable because of the defenders actions in failing to have it witnessed, is an important consideration as well.

 

"My Lord has considerable information about the financial circumstances of the pursuer, but no information whatsoever about the financial circumstances of the defender."

 

Castle Grant

 

She said in the action Mr Whyte denied habitual residence in Britain and added he only stayed at Castle Grant, at Grantown-on-Spey, when in Scotland.

 

His wife was also seeking an apportionment of expenditure over the castle, including loan payments, building insurance, maintenance and staff costs incurred over the matrimonial home of 0% to her and 100% to her husband. Miss Brabender said the husband had resided at the property since the couple stopped living together in December 2009.

 

She had required to obtain borrowing to purchase an alternative property, but remained liable for outgoings over the castle.

 

Miss Brabender said Mrs Whyte had contacted an insurer who previously provided cover at the castle and was told the policy was no longer in place. The counsel said that since then lawyers acting for the wife had repeatedly asked for a valid building insurance certificate and it "was not forthcoming".

 

Mrs Whyteâ??s lawyer told the hearing that as part of the February agreement Mr Whyte had agreed to show a valid certificate or satisfy her of continuing insurance but that has not been produced.

 

She added: "In my submission she has a reasonable apprehension that there is some difficulty standing the issue with the building insurance."

 

Lord Tyre queried whether her concern was that the property was in fact uninsured which would be a breach of mortgage conditions. Miss Brabender replied: "Yes, My Lord. It is a very large property which has had a significant insurance premium to be paid."

 

She said it remained a matrimonial home with the parties still presently married. She maintained the wife was entitled to know the castle was insured. Lord Tyre said: "I am happy to grant the motion."

 

The judge confirmed he would allow 28 days for a valid building insurance certificate to be produced. He reserved the question of expenses for proceedings at which Mr Whyte was not legally represented.

 

http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/301326-rangers-owner-craig-whyte-ordered-to-pay-estranged-wife-5000-a-month/

[BlueMazza 0]

Interesting. He either has NO cash flow or he has it stashed away. Good on her, she's had to take a loan out on a new property yet is still liable for the castle.

 

I doubt she'll see much if any of the money.

[Danny 0]

If Whyte had not taken us over, no one would know or care about this. But it does increasingly look like he is worth absolutely nothing. At least, nothing significant, and definitely not the near-billion he was reported to be worth back in the day.

[calscot 0]

I think it's obvious he as access to plenty of cash - he just hides so well no-one can get any from him. BTW Stating the obvious but it seems to be overlooked a lot: billionaires don't have a billion in the bank. It's all tied up in their companies and investments.

[Zappa 0]

I think it's obvious he as access to plenty of cash

 

Do you think?

[Stefanovitch 0]

Do you think?

 

The Jelavic money for a start!

[Danny 0]

The Jelavic money for a start!

 

Word is we made nothing from that deal. Apparently we hadn't even paid Wien in full for him. He was practically a loan deal albeit a permanent one. Till he moved on.

[Juancornetto 1]

The guy's obviously not skint, he lives between a house in Monaco and a castle on Speyside. Slept with a billionaire though.

[bluebear54 0]

The guy is a waste of space. No dignity, no morality.

I would like him totally erased from our history. No pictures, portraits, not even a mention within the history of the Club.

We should be grateful that he's not able to pay the alimony out of our coffers.

I take it he is receiving nada from us ar present?

[Cotter 0]

Blah blah blah blah...can we just have an upskirt shot please?