[ad_1]
The Zurich District Court has acquitted the King of Zurich gastronomy Rudi Bindella of the charge of non-compliance with maintenance obligations. Bindella had cut his ex-wife’s alimony because he owed her money (BLICK reported).
The files painted the picture of an extremely bitter and exhausting war of the roses, the judge said in giving reasons for the verdict on the successful 72-year-old businessman.
Short marriage, eternal war of roses
The argument that brought Bindella to the dock on Thursday took place in connection with a year-long war of the roses with his ex-wife.
The marriage broke up after a few years. Arguments have now lasted more than double. The couple have been divorced for about two years and the consequences of the separation are still being discussed.
When the district court retroactively reduced his alimony payments slightly in the fall of 2018 and awarded her compensation for the proceedings, he offset the amount owed to her with the next two monthly alimony payments.
Report of negligence in maintenance obligations
In total, it was about 30,000 francs. However, he excluded alimony for his son from compensation. When the High Court later lifted the maintenance cut, Bindella returned the money.
His ex-wife later reported him for neglecting maintenance obligations. In fact, alimony payments are protected, at least partially, from the compensation of mutual claims.
Bindella’s defense attorney took the position that compensation with alimony payments was only prohibited if it caused existential difficulties for the other party. In a federal court ruling on the issue of “pushing to misery” the speech.
However, that cannot be disputed in the present case. Bindella’s ex-wife had several tens of thousands of francs available in bank accounts at the time in question and also had assets of several hundred thousand francs. Therefore, acquittal is mandatory.
“There is no moral winner”
Instead, the ex-wife’s attorney argued that Bindella had “interfered with her protected subsistence level” by fully offsetting two monthly support payments.
The court basically agreed with Bindella’s attorney. Therefore, the compensation prohibition only applies to alimony contributions that are absolutely necessary for subsistence. However, the woman was far from being an emergency.
“Today you win in the first instance, but there is no moral winner,” the judge told Bindella. It is unfortunate that he and his ex-wife have failed to end the War of the Roses to this day. The former couple claimed enormous capacities of the judiciary with numerous procedures.
Ex wife not present
The judge likely would have also personally directed some words of warning to Bindella’s ex-wife. Since she was represented by her lawyer, this was not possible.
Instead, she receives judicial feedback in the form of a bill of around 13,000 francs for judicial and procedural costs, as well as compensation for her ex-husband. The latter could now, purely theoretically, compensate with food payments. The decision is not final yet. (cat / SDA)
