Bankrupt developer's wife awarded €9000 per month living expenses

DebDynamite

Wife of bankrupt developer Larry O’Mahony - a former business partner of Priory Hall developer Thomas McFeely - has been awarded €9000 living expenses:

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/developer-s-wife-awarded-9-000-a-month-expenses-1.1593800

This included some €3,000 to €3,5000 monthly costs of renting a four bedroom home in Dublin 4; €1,644 school fees and extra-curricular expenses for her three children; about €820 to cover monthly car expenses and €165 for a golf subscription.

God forbid they might have to rent a house in Dublin 5 or drive a 6 year old mid-range family car :eek:

It seems it really is one rule in this country for the haves and the have-nots.

Sky King

900 or 9000?

Actually I don't care either way...

flutered

cut backs are only for the working poor, the disabled and their cares the unemployed.

WilyCoyote

I presume NAMA (the taxpayer) is footing the bill. Has anyone inquired about the logic of this? How can it stand up?

EuropeanSon

So she is getting the equivalent of a €190k wage from his frozen assets (190k after tax is about 108k)? That's disgusting.

It's easy to judge but we don't have to live her life.

Vizzy

Deleted User wrote: »

It's easy to judge but we don't have to live her life.

No - but I'd like to !!

Boombastic

So what does she actually do to earn this??

ted1

Over 800 euro a month for a car, they live in D4, great public transport around there.

Shame on the judge.

Ace2007

WilyCoyote wrote: »

I presume NAMA (the taxpayer) is footing the bill. Has anyone inquired about the logic of this? How can it stand up?

Somewhere along the lines of she claims the money is hers, this has to go to court to be proved either way - this could take a few years, does she therefore have to change her way of living until this is sorted out.

If proved in 2 years time that the money was hers then I assumed it would have been unlawful that it was frozen without given her what she asked for in monthly payments, i.e. the 9k.

Obv I don't agree with it, but you can kinda see where she is coming from.

theblaqueguy

What a ****ing joke!

Timmyctc

Throw another peasant on the fire lads she's getting cold

WilyCoyote

ted1 wrote: »

Over 800 euro a month for a car, they live in D4, great public transport around there.

Shame on the judge.

Have you tried to do your weekly grocery shopping in Donnybrook Fair? And then pay a parking fine after you come out? Obviously not :rolleyes:

miss tickle

Is the ruling because they are unsure who actually owns the money, or is it based on her current needs, because if the latter is the case this could open a huge can of worms.

WilyCoyote

Ace2007 wrote: »

Somewhere along the lines of she claims the money is hers, this has to go to court to be proved either way - this could take a few years, does she therefore have to change her way of living until this is sorted out.

If proved in 2 years time that the money was hers then I assumed it would have been unlawful that it was frozen without given her what she asked for in monthly payments, i.e. the 9k.

Obv I don't agree with it, but you can kinda see where she is coming from.

And if it's found that the money is not hers? Does she pay back this little stipend?

FearDark

A golf subscription?

9 grand?

What the **** is this ****?

What ****ing planet is this?

Boombastic

The Independent copy the Times story word for word, except they leave out the last bit



'....Mr O’Mahony had an “intricate” business relationship with Michael Fingleton of INBS and had told her Mr Fingleton sanctioned the €2.5m loan, she claims. When the loan issued, INBS knew Portal already owned the luxury property and was not in fact the entity borrowing the money to buy that property, she alleges.'

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/wife-of-mcfeelys-former-business-partner-wins-living-expenses-of-9000-a-month-29752344.html


http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/developer-s-wife-awarded-9-000-a-month-expenses-1.1593800?page=2

miss tickle

Ace2007 wrote: »

Somewhere along the lines of she claims the money is hers, this has to go to court to be proved either way - this could take a few years, does she therefore have to change her way of living until this is sorted out.

If proved in 2 years time that the money was hers then I assumed it would have been unlawful that it was frozen without given her what she asked for in monthly payments, i.e. the 9k.

Obv I don't agree with it, but you can kinda see where she is coming from.

Sorry posted before I saw your reply, does she pay it back if it is proven not to be hers?

BNMC

Boombastic wrote: »

So what does she actually do to earn this??

Open her legs.

Ace2007

miss tickle wrote: »

Sorry posted before I saw your reply, does she pay it back if it is proven not to be hers?

it did mention something about the tax payers picking up the bill but wasn't too sure on that one.

But I suppose a child could be through college before any case and ruling comes through the courts in Ireland, so in theory not really fair to pluck the kids from college or school now.

WilyCoyote

BNMC wrote: »

Open her legs.

Or perhaps her mouth!

K-9

WilyCoyote wrote: »

I presume NAMA (the taxpayer) is footing the bill. Has anyone inquired about the logic of this? How can it stand up?

It seems NAMA, or well the old Anglo which is effectively the same thing, is claiming the €1 Million account, but until that is decided, this is what the court sees as reasonable expenditure.

Whatever about the rental costs after getting evicted form her family home, €1,644 a month on school fees always annoys me. From this and a similar case posted about on AH a few months back, it seems private education is seen as an essential cost when times get tough. It's a very D4 attitude, sorry for using the stereotypical description.

mike65

One day Arthur Mathews and Graham Linehan will put their differences aside and write the definitive golden circle satire.

marketty

BNMC wrote: »

Open her legs.

Now I ain't saying she a gold digger...
No, wait, yes I am

Days 298

Living expenses. Only €9000 a month! :eek: We will see her on the trocaire box next Easter. Shame on the judge doesn't he know about mimimum standards the state should ensure citizens receive.

Montroseee

K-9 wrote: »

It seems NAMA, or well the old Anglo which is effectively the same thing, is claiming the €1 Million account, but until that is decided, this is what the court sees as reasonable expenditure.

Whatever about the rental costs after getting evicted form her family home, €1,644 a month on school fees always annoys me. From this and a similar case posted about on AH a few months back, it seems private education is seen as an essential cost when times get tough. It's a very D4 attitude, sorry for using the stereotypical description.

There is no information on what year that child is in. If they were in 6th year for example, moving schools and teachers etc. could have a negative impact on exam results. I would not bemoan those school fees tbh.

Gatling

€3,500 pm on renting a 4 bed absolutely disgusting situation,
School fees
And maintaining the kids extra curricular activities

9000pm for somebody that's bankrupt , out of tax payers pockets ,

Wasn't there a tiger kidnapping episode in love/hate recently ,

Boombastic

About the school fees

This is an article from the independent 25 July 2013 http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/omahony-family-to-leave-6m-home-by-christmas-29448343.html


.....Frank Beatty, counsel for Ms Connolly, appealed to the judge for an eight months stay on the order to allow the children complete the current school year before quitting their home..............










Why did she she them back to that school in September? She couldn't afford it.

Rayne Wooney

Boombastic wrote: »

About the school fees

This is an article from the independent 25 July 2013 http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/omahony-family-to-leave-6m-home-by-christmas-29448343.html


.....Frank Beatty, counsel for Ms Connolly, appealed to the judge for an eight months stay on the order to allow the children complete the current school year before quitting their home..............










Why did she she them back to that school in September? She couldn't afford it.

You can't expect her to send her children to school with the common people

professore

Montroseee wrote: »

There is no information on what year that child is in. If they were in 6th year for example, moving schools and teachers etc. could have a negative impact on exam results. I would not bemoan those school fees tbh.

"Normal" people are faced with these decisions every day. Such bs.

Gatling

Actually its well known issue in private schools where parents are refusing to pay fee's in 6th year safe in the knowledge there son/ daughter won't be kicked our prior to the leaving cert ,
Many private schools are now in discussions with dept of education to become normal non fee secondary schools

Montroseee

professore wrote: »

"Normal" people are faced with these decisions every day. Such bs.

It's not the children's fault their parents gambled. I would not begrudge them their fees for school, the rent however.....

K-9

Montroseee wrote: »

There is no information on what year that child is in. If they were in 6th year for example, moving schools and teachers etc. could have a negative impact on exam results. I would not bemoan those school fees tbh.

True, there are always exceptional cases.

Boombastic wrote: »

About the school fees

This is an article from the independent 25 July 2013 http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/omahony-family-to-leave-6m-home-by-christmas-29448343.html


.....Frank Beatty, counsel for Ms Connolly, appealed to the judge for an eight months stay on the order to allow the children complete the current school year before quitting their home..............

Why did she she them back to that school in September? She couldn't afford it.

That might have been the article the AH thread was on. It reeks of D4 stereotypical status symbols like private education seen as reasonable, in most of the country very few would have the option of private, never mind seeing it as essential.

Montroseee

Gatling wrote: »

Actually its well known issue in private schools where parents are refusing to pay fee's in 6th year safe in the knowledge there son/ daughter won't be kicked our prior to the leaving cert ,
Many private schools are now in discussions with dept of education to become normal non fee secondary schools

They won't be kicked out, they will however be pursued through the courts and get a judgement quite easily.

Gatling

Montroseee wrote: »

It's not the children's fault their parents gambled. I would not begrudge them their fees for school, the rent however.....

So its ok for a family in say a council house who run into trouble with rent arrears to be evicted and having to move to a new area and there kids change schools

But its not OK for the well off

Boombastic

Montroseee wrote: »

It's not the children's fault their parents gambled. I would not begrudge them their fees for school, the rent however.....

It's not their fault but there are consequences to their parents actions which may affect them. I've not much sympathy for them to be honest, living in a 3 bed house, going to the local school, the same as the rest of us, maybe the best thing that ever happened to them

The parents should have made better choices.

K-9

Montroseee wrote: »

It's not the children's fault their parents gambled.

I'd normally be all for that reasoning for basic things, but come on, we are chatting the difference between sending then to the local Tech or Blackrock, or whatever the private school of choice is.

My name is URL

Shut the fcuk up and pay yizzer TV licences you smelly hippies.

Montroseee

K-9 wrote: »

I'd normally be all for that reasoning for basic things, but come on, we are chatting the difference between sending then to the local Tech or Blackrock, or whatever the private school of choice is.

TBH once the children weren't in the Junior Cert years I wouldn't have a problem with my taxes helping fund their education. People are underestimating the effect it could have on their results, it's not fair. The rent money is clearly the issue here.

General General

Montroseee wrote: »

There is no information on what year that child is in. If they were in 6th year for example, moving schools and teachers etc. could have a negative impact on exam results. I would not bemoan those school fees tbh.

Why should any kid then not have an award for monthly education fees of a thousand plus euro, paid for by the tax payer?

Seriously, it's not any kid's fault that their parents cannot afford those fees.

& any kid who has never had the kind of attention that a thousand plus euro per month education fee buys NEEDS it, surely, much more than someone who has had the experience for a good while.

Gulliver

This is terrible. Next thing you know this poor woman will be reduced to buying her food in M&S and her Manolo Blahniks when they're nearly out of season. I think that judge should be disbarred for that judgement. How he thinks she can live on that pittance is beyond me. I mean that works out at €300 a day. What can you buy for €300 a day? Nothing, that's what.

Montroseee

General General wrote: »

Why should any kid then not have an award for monthly education fees of a thousand plus euro, paid for by the tax payer?

Seriously, it's not any kid's fault that their parents cannot afford those fees.

& any kid who has never had the kind of attention that a thousand plus euro per month education fee buys NEEDS it, surely, much more than someone who has had the experience for a good while.

Changing schools is a very big deal at that age. It may not seem like it is to adults but believe me it really is. I changed schools in 5th yr and it without doubt adversely affected my results. Thankfully the court seemed to understand this, the rest of the judgement I strongly oppose.

Muahahaha

Days 298 wrote: »

Living expenses. Only €9000 a month! :eek: We will see her on the trocaire box next Easter. Shame on the judge doesn't he know about mimimum standards the state should ensure citizens receive.

I presume this was heard in the High Court. If so the judge himself is getting paid around €20,000 per month so he probably thought to himself that she'll be practically on the poverty line on €9,000 a month.

Just goes to show how out of touch the judiciary are with the common man on the street. I seem to remember an identical case about 18 months back where Justice Peter Kelly awarded a developers wife around €6k a month to run her house, a McMansion somewhere round the midlands. Peter Kelly is normally one of the more realistic judges who doesn't take any sh1t, he even threatened Michael o'Leary with jail time if he didn't take his hands out of his pockets and stop acting the muppet in court. But in that instance he allowed to stay in a huge house at the taxpayers expense, he got it totally wrong, again it is a case of our judges being paid way too much and then thinking that needing thousands per month to run a house is reasonable.

My name is URL

Montroseee wrote: »

People are underestimating the effect it could have on their results, it's not fair. The rent money is clearly the issue here.

The issue here is that nobody needs €9000 per month to 'live'.

Will a cut in the amount of money spent on their education have any significant effect on other people? No.. so don't expect them to row in in support of such entitled little leeches.

Dyr

DebDynamite wrote: »

Wife of bankrupt developer Larry O’Mahony - a former business partner of Priory Hall developer Thomas McFeely - has been awarded €9000 living expenses:

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/developer-s-wife-awarded-9-000-a-month-expenses-1.1593800

God forbid they might have to rent a house in Dublin 5 or drive a 6 year mid-range family car :eek:

It seems it really is one rule in this country for the haves and the have-nots.

thank god they're "topping up" the money the state pays towards private school with their own income.

K-9

Montroseee wrote: »

The rent money is clearly the issue here.

Not really. Can you recommend somewhere substantially cheaper than €800 a month? The issue here is the private education.

hfallada

She has gone from living in a large house on Ailesbury road(repossessed by NAMA) to a rented house somewhere else. She has lost everything because of the actions of her husband. Why should she and her children have to suffer by the actions of her husband? €9000 is a lot of money, but its probably spare change to what she was used to.

Gatling

hfallada wrote: »

She has gone from living in a large house on Ailesbury road(repossessed by NAMA) to a rented house somewhere else. She has lost everything because of the actions of her husband. Why should she and her children have to suffer by the actions of her husband? €9000 is a lot of money, but its probably spare change to what she was used to.

She could well easily get a job ,

I can personally think of a few jobs she could probably do quite well

Red21

Montroseee wrote: »

People are underestimating the effect it could have on their results, it's not fair.

I doubt many give a flying **** how these kids do in the Leaving, i'd say the education they've recieved from their parents and how society works cannot be undone.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

Not really. Can you recommend somewhere substantially cheaper than €800 a month? The issue here is the private education.

Oops, arithmetic error. €800 a week . Think she might find somewhere a bit cheaper.

Boombastic

Could she not go for a jog instead of playing golf? Golf? really??