OPINION:If they were getting divorced in Ireland, Elin Nordegren may not have fared so well, writes ANN O'NEILL
REPORTS FROM the US suggest that Elin Nordegren has reaped rewards from her relatively short marriage to Tiger Woods far in excess of a prenuptial agreement which would have given her $20 million if the marriage ended after 10 years. Nordegren and Woods married in 2004 and, if US press speculation is to be believed, she will receive a divorce payoff variously estimated at somewhere between $500 million (€394 million) and $750 million.
It appears extraordinary to any Irish lawyer viewing the facts of the case that Woods would increase the offer from $20 million to a possible $750 million. Why would he do so? And could it happen here?
The fundamental difference between divorce cases handled within the US and those heard in this jurisdiction exists in relation to disclosure of the details of the hearing.
In Ireland, all family law proceedings are protected by the in camera rule, which prevents publication of any details of family law proceedings and ensures absolute privacy during all stages of the action.
In the US, most of the less-than-savoury details of the war between embittered spouses becomes fodder for the tabloid press and provides the prurient with a keyhole view of the lives of the rich and famous.
A recent celebrity marital breakdown in New York between former Sports Illustrated model Stephanie Seymour and her much older billionaire husband, newsprint magnate Peter M Brant, is just one such case which has provided titillation for the hoi polloi.
Allegations of marital infidelities, drugs and alcohol have been detailed in open court, which has had an unfortunate and permanent effect on the public perception of the character of the parties involved. Colour pieces abound in the US broadsheets and tabloids alike, with famous names littering the guest lists of the lavish parties described as being practically weekly events in the life of this couple.
Why would Tiger Woods hand over such an enormous sum of money, in circumstances where, it seems clear, he was protected by the terms of a prenuptial agreement?
The sad consequence of the breakdown of a marriage is that its regularisation usually focuses on financial matters. It would appear from this case that Nordegren has fared very well in relation to the financial outcome of a six-year marriage.
The simple fact of the matter is that it is probably the case that Woods has chosen to pay this substantial price to ensure that his reputation is not further damaged by the exposure of family secrets to a ravenous media.
Tiger Woods is a brand, albeit a tarnished one at the present time. However, his charisma remains and his presence at any international competition guarantees column inches. Eventually, with no further revelations to fuel the public thirst for salacious gossip, the endorsements will return, allowing him the possibility to generate ever greater financial rewards.
The reality is that the huge returns to an international sports star, such as Woods, come from the off-shoots of his sporting prowess – the endorsements and the advertising deals. However, if he is faced with a hotly contested divorce, with allegations flying on both sides, the brand is damaged.
The likelihood is that this divorce settlement was purely a commercial decision and he decided to pay up and get out fast, hoping to maximise his earning power for the future.
In Ireland, none of these issues would play any part in determining the financial outcome of the breakdown of such a marriage.
Firstly, as matters presently stand, a prenuptial agreement would be unlikely to be enforced, so therefore the bar would not have been set in relation to the exit costs in the event that the marriage were to break down.
Even more significantly, however, the Irish courts deal with the breakdown of marriages behind closed doors. They may hear wild allegations of misbehaviour, true or otherwise. But because no details of these ever reach the public domain, there is no benefit to the financially dominant party in caving in so as to avoid them being publicised.
The criteria that the courts use to determine distribution of the assets in the breakdown of any marriage are essentially based on proper provision for the spouses and any children of the marriage. Proper provision, of course, is a very subjective concept, as it does depend on the assets of the parties and not simply on basic financial need.
The fact is that if Nordegren and Woods were based in Ireland and sorting out their affairs here, she might have found herself receiving a considerably smaller bonanza.
Notwithstanding the huge pool of assets available, the court would look at the length of the marriage, the needs of the dependent children and, to some extent, at the provenance of the assets.
Tiger Woods has been accumulating wealth since he was a very young golfer and in these circumstances, it would be unlikely that an Irish court would distribute 50 per cent of the entire assets of the marriage to his wife following a breakdown after six years.
Is this an argument, therefore, in favour of the continuation of the in camera rule? Speaking as a lawyer practising exclusively in the family law arena, I would have to say that it is. Marital breakdown is extraordinarily difficult at the best of times, involving as it does the combination of emotion and finance and is a matter which should be kept private and personal to the parties involved.
The possibility of publication of a couple’s most private battles paves the way for injustice because it allows the introduction of extraneous influences when determining what is to happen at the denouement of the marriage.
We live, however, in a society where financial success is applauded and many would say you have to hand it to Elin Nordegren. She has handled what must have been an appalling emotional blow in a manner to her very best economic advantage and therefore, judged purely on the basis of all the best business models, she has emerged as one of the success stories of a financially ravaged decade.
Ann O’Neill is a partner and head of the family law department at solicitors McKeever Rowan in Dublin