The Brooklyn couple whose epic six-year divorce battle played out like "The War of the Roses" has officially untied the knot, but the settlement is sparking a new war.
A judge Wednesday finalized the divorce of Simon and Chana Taub, ending a bitter standoff that included the installment of a partition inside their Borough Park home when both refused to move.
It took two trials and endless sniping - which even marred their daughter's wedding last year - to resolve the fierce feud and divvy up the property between the sweater mogul and his homemaker wife.
Their infamous three-story brownstone on 49th St., where the couple set up a court-approved Sheetrock divider in 2007, must be sold and the profits split evenly, a Brooklyn Supreme Court judge decreed.
"It's not final at all," an angry Chana Taub told the Daily News, adding she is "outraged" that the judge ordered her and ex-husband to sell their house and three other marital properties.
"I'm still living here with my children and my elderly father," Chana Taub said in front of her brownstone. "My house should not be sold. It's impossible that the judge should want to throw me out on the street. I'm going to appeal it, definitely."
The caustic couple still shares the home.
The unique setup earned them the "War of the Roses" label, a reference to the 1989 flick in which Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner play battling spouses who similarly halve their home.
The court ruling also orders Simon Taub to pay his ex about $1.5 million plus a $6,000 monthly stipend, but he can keep three other buildings he owns.
"My client was very happy with the decision," said his lawyer Abe Konstam. "I hope it ends the litigation of Taub vs. Taub."
He said that Chana Taub inflated the value of properties and filed numerous suits in multiple jurisdictions against "everybody who ever said 'hi' to her," but they were all dismissed.
The couple has four kids, the youngest turning 21 in six months, sparing the court a ruling on child support and visitation, the judge wrote in his decision.
After a jury rejected the couple's first stab at divorce in 2007, they agreed to separate in 2008, but remained in the home squabbling over their property.
"Trial testimony was confused and muddled. Claims on both sides were unsubstantiated," wrote Justice Matthew D'Emic.
"Nevertheless, it is the court's obligation to find the credible facts and equitably lay to rest this twenty-six-year partnership," he added.
She is crazy
ReplyDelete