Point in favor of Ferruccio Ferragamo, president of Salvatore Ferragamo Spa (assets estimated at around 4 billion euros) in the millionaire divorce from his ex-wife, Ilaria Giusti, who after the separation moved to London with her only child, now of age, born of marriage.
The first civil section, with the ordinance n. 25966, has in fact opened the request for a charge against the former due to the alleged marital infidelities. It will be the Court of Appeal of Florence (in the postponement), however, to say the last word on the matter.
The supreme court, on the other hand, did not touch the check of 60 thousand euros per month for Giusti and almost twenty thousand for her son, also establishing that the amount due will be updated according to the cost of living in the United Kingdom. But the decision is also interesting from a legal point of view. The legitimacy judges, in fact, underline that the entrepreneur’s initial tolerance of his wife’s infidelity is not a sufficient reason to refuse the charge in light of the further “stories” of the ex produced in court.
“The acceptance – reads the decision – by the applicant of behaviors detrimental to the duty of fidelity, held by his wife a few years before the filing of the request for separation”, does not exclude “the possibility of asserting, as a cause of charge, similar behaviors subsequently held by the woman “. In fact, he “had asked to be admitted to prove that the aforementioned relationship had been followed by others … In this way, hinting clearly that the tolerance he initially expressed … It had ceased, due to the repeated violation of the duty of fidelity … Which had determined the failure of the union “.
The maintenance allowance, on the other hand, does not change. At least for now. In fact, the court explains, it follows a “thorough examination of the overall financial and income situation of the parties, on the basis of which the court of second instance ascertained the existence of a significant economic inequality between the spouses, such as to to impose the recognition in favor of the woman of a suitable contribution to allow her to maintain the high standard of living enjoyed during the cohabitation “.
However, and this is another interesting step, the allowance (although very high) is not, and must not be, actually commensurate with the “very significant assets and income of the applicant” or the “spending capacity of the family unit”, as “beyond a certain limit, the reference to this parameter would result in the attribution of an economic contribution higher than that necessary for the satisfaction of his needs, in contrast with the function of the maintenance allowance”.
In short, since the function of the allowance consists in “maintaining a standard of satisfaction of one’s needs not lower than that previously enjoyed … amount due, otherwise resulting in an unjustified completion of the entitled person “.
These resources, therefore, are “also susceptible to use in the respective professional or entrepreneurial activity or to be set aside for savings or investment purposes”. In fact, “while contributing to the identification of the overall economic level of the family unit and its social location, they do not lead to a further increase in the degree of satisfaction of the personal and relationship needs of its members”.