Brady Dougan Don't Want To Pay No Stinkin' Interest To His Ex-Wife

Author:
Updated:
Original:

So he was late on some payments, so what? So his lawyer even admits to feeling awkward arguing this case, so what? That woman is not seeing another dime!

Credit Suisse Group AG chief executive Brady Dougan should not have to pay his ex-wife more than $750,000 in interest for being 12 days late with a $7.5 million divorce-related payment, his lawyer told the Connecticut Supreme Court on Tuesday. But justices appeared skeptical of Dougan's claims and asked his lawyer why Dougan was challenging a clause in his June 2005 divorce settlement. The high court didn't immediately rule Tuesday.

Dougan, of Greenwich, agreed to pay his ex-wife, Tomoko Hamada Dougan, $15.3 million in two installments under the divorce settlement. He paid the $7.5 million second installment 12 days late in June 2006 and gave her an extra $25,000, representing interest for the 12 days at the 10 percent annual rate set by the settlement. But Tomoko Dougan's attorney, Gaetano Ferro, said the divorce settlement called for interest to be paid back to the date of the settlement, not to the second payment's due date. Ferro said he was shocked that case was before the Supreme Court, and said Brady Dougan was reneging on the deal he signed. "You can't go to court and tell the judge it's fair and equitable, then turn around a year later and say, 'Only kidding,'" Ferro told the court. In addition to the $15.3 million, Tomoko Dougan also received one of the couple's homes that was worth $9.6 million, accounts totaling about $143,000 and a 2000 BMW X5, documents show.

Justice Dennis Eveleigh on Tuesday asked Brady Dougan's lawyer, Gary Cohen, whether he had a problem arguing against the divorce deal's late payment interest clause after having agreed to it. Cohen responded that it didn't occur to him when the settlement was approved that the interest clause would be invalid. "It never occurred to me that there would be a breach," Cohen said. "Hindsight is always 20/20. I think it's my obligation to my client to advance appropriate arguments on his behalf."

Court Hears Credit Suisse Divorce Case [AP]

Related