I have read with interest the commentary on a highly contested divorce currently proceeding in New York, the divorce of Olivier Sarkozy (the half brother of Nicolas Sarkozy) and his wife Charlotte. According to the press reports (even reported in the English press - eg see Telegraph of 5 December) Mrs Sarkozy is trying to overturn the terms of a French 'pre-nup' the parties had entered into when they married in the 1990's. Olivier apparently had been 'summoned' by his future father in law to sign the contract to protect Charlotte's family trusts. Since then Olivier's career and financial position had gone from strength to strength and, by the time of the parties' separation, the terms of the agreement no longer suited Charlotte and to the contrary were very much in her husband's interests .
It has been reported this weekend that the wife of a City trader is seeking a share of the £7.5 million which he transferred to Lichtenstein companies during the course of the marriage. Mr Goldstone and the companies maintain that the assets were legitimately transferred. Mrs Goldstone meanwhile alleges that, far from having transferred ownership in these assets, her husband still retains control of and a beneficial interest in them and she is therefore entitled to a share of those funds as part of her financial claim upon divorce.
It is a common misconception that parties can obtain a divorce in this country based on their ‘irreconcilable differences’. Would such a ground be welcome?
Legal Notices | Privacy Notice | Fraud Warning | Modern Slavery Statement | Complaints | Website Terms | Cookie Policy | Accessibility | Site Map
© 2025 Kingsley Napley LLP. All rights reserved. Authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, registration number 500046.
Skip to content Home About Us Insights Services Contact Accessibility