She received confirmation from the Tax Administration that the marriage on a luxury yacht in the Mediterranean was valid. And the couple was handed a marriage certificate.
But when the husband wanted a divorce six years later, the nightmare began.
Following a demand from the man, the Tax Agency decided that the couple had not been legally married after all.
– The registration has taken place as a result of a regrettable error on the part of the tax office, they wrote in their decision.
– Thus, the cohabitation was terminated according to the rules for cohabitants instead of as spouses with joint property. I am insured and am left with a loss of over two million kroner. And debt, including for legal fees. I also have to pay the legal costs of my ex-husband. All because of the Tax Administration’s error, says the woman.
– She entered the marriage wealthy, but ended up as a victim of debt, says her lawyer, Solveig Ekeberg.
Sold the house
The woman says that she has, among other things, lost the money she got for selling her house after the couple moved into the man’s home together.
– This was money we managed together because we were married and agreed that we had joint property. Until my husband wanted a divorce, there was never any doubt about this.
She has tried to get the Tax Agency, the State Administrator and Bufdir to clean up, to no avail.
THE TABLECLOTH FOR THE PARTY: This is what it looked like on deck before the wedding ceremony in port in Corsica. Photo: Private
That is why she is now considering a lawsuit against the Swedish Tax Agency.
– The tax authorities and the state have not taken responsibility for their own mistakes. For my client, this has led to ruin, both personally and financially. It is highly objectionable, says lawyer Solveig Ekeberg.
She believes that the only fair thing is that the Tax Agency, which has admitted the error, must cover the woman’s loss or reverse its decision.
The ex-husband says he disagrees with his former spouse’s presentation of the case. And that it is not true that she has lost large sums of money.
– It’s wrong. That’s all I can say. I have only tried to save with me what I brought into the marriage, he says.
The tax authorities refer to the duty of confidentiality and write that they will assess a claim for compensation when one arises.
Celebrity meeting
We turn back the clock to 2010, when everything seemed rosy and the couple, who sometimes lived in a boat, had decided to get married.
The woman tells an incredible story.
One evening, she and her ex-husband, through an acquaintance, met Sir Richard Branson in a pub at Aker Brygge.
The Briton is known as the owner of the airline, Virgin Atlantic Airways and the space company Virgin Galactic.
The pair got talking to Branson, who told them that he himself had lived on a boat in his younger days.
– We had never met him before. But when he heard we were getting married, he was so excited that he offered to do it on his yacht, which was in the Mediterranean. We were overjoyed and struck, the woman tells TV 2.
SPECIAL MEETING: Richard Branson offered the Norwegian couple to marry on his boat in the Mediterranean. (Photo: AFP/Pa Photos editing: TV 2)
Thus began the planning.
She says both were concerned with finding out what was needed to enter into a legal marriage on a boat in international waters, with the captain as the officiant.
They therefore contacted the Swedish Tax Agency to make sure that the plan they had made for the wedding could be approved.
Approved by the Norwegian Tax Agency
– During meetings with the case manager, this was confirmed, says the woman.
When they returned home from their honeymoon, the Tax Agency signed both the marriage certificate and a document stating that the conditions for entering into marriage have been met.
The marriages were also registered in the population register.
And so it was for six years until they were separated, and the man demanded a divorce.
In this process, he approached the Tax Agency via a lawyer. And questioned whether the marriage, which had been concluded outside Norway, had been correctly concluded.
UNHEARED: Lawyer Solveig Ekeberg believes it is completely hair-raising that the Tax Agency, which has admitted a serious mistake, does not clean up Photo: Advokatkollegiet Kindem og co
The husband referred, among other things, to marriage documents, which should not have been validly signed.
The ex-wife claims the motive was to escape the rules on joint ownership.
– Because in the years before this we had both been sure that we were legally married, she says.
The ex-husband denies that he had any financial motive.
U-turn
The Tax Agency’s assessment came as a shock to the woman. They fully supported the ex-husband.
Eight years after they had approved the papers themselves, they maintained that the documentation for a valid marriage was not good enough, and referred to the Hague Convention.
APOLOGIZED: This is an excerpt from the letter in which the Tax Agency apologizes. It was sent to the parties in the case in 2018.
They regretted that they had made a mistake when they registered the marriage. And pointed out that the captain did not have marriage competence in Corsica, where the boat was in port during the ceremony, due to stormy weather.
– Marriage certificates from France/Corsica must be affixed with an apostille stamp, which confirms that the person who issued the certificate has the necessary powers. The Norwegian marriage certificate signed by the captain does not have an apostille stamp, writes the Tax Agency.
Their decision was made after they had processed the husband’s petition for separation, and after they had granted the application for divorce.
In both of these applications, the date of when the marriage was entered into is stated. But at this point the Tax Agency did not ask any questions about this.
– I was shocked and did not understand that this was possible. The tax authorities had given notice that everything was in order and approved the papers, says the woman.
– There are special reasons
The parties did not agree on the probate settlement. And the woman demanded compensation to correct what she believed to be a financial bias of great importance.
LYING IN HARBOR: The tax authorities believe the captain did not meet the requirements to marry the Norwegian couple. Photo: Private
But this case was put on hold when the husband filed a lawsuit about the validity of the marriage in the Oslo District Court.
The woman lost in Oslo District Court. For a very special reason.
Three days before the case was to come up, the judge contacted her lawyer.
– He strongly regretted that he had possibly neglected himself, and said it was beyond the court’s competence to assess what is actually the woman’s main argument; that there are special circumstances based on the Marriage Act, says the woman’s lawyer, Solveig Ekeberg.
The woman claims that as long as the marriage was approved by mistake by the state, and the couple has lived and adjusted to the fact that they were married for years, then the exception provisions in the law must apply.
They assume that an invalid marriage can be considered valid if there are special circumstances.
– She was condemned to lose in the district court, because they could not make a decision against the exemption provisions. Thus, emphasis was only placed on the fact that the captain who married them did not have the right to marry. And that the wedding had taken place on French territory, so that French rules should have been followed, explains lawyer Ekeberg.
And she continues:
– The special thing is that the assessment of whether there are special circumstances lies outside the competence of the courts. This is what the County Governor, i.e. what is today called the State Administrator, can do. That is why the case was brought there.
THE FLAG: The Norwegian flag was raised on the luxury boat in connection with the wedding. Photo: Private
But this complaint did not lead either.
– Extensive deficiencies
The county governor writes in his decision that they assume that the parties arranged themselves as spouses, and that this had happened over such a long period of time that it speaks for approval.
– However, we have come to the conclusion that the deficiencies are so extensive that there are no special reasons, and the marriage cannot be approved. Particular emphasis is placed on the fact that the wedding ceremony is performed by a person who does not have marriage ceremony expertise either in Norway or abroad, it is stated in the decision.
Bufdir made the same assessment when the case was appealed there. They admitted that this would have clear negative consequences for the woman, and also wrote where they believe the responsibility lies.
– Likewise, Bufdir finds that it can be assumed that the parties lived in good faith for several years in the belief that they had entered into a valid marriage, and that this is largely due to a gross and obvious error on the part of a Norwegian authority.
The one who is left with a black card after the error from the Tax Agency is the divorced woman, who also complained to the Civil Ombudsman, without getting through.
– Despite the fact that it is the state that has shown gross negligence and made an irreparable mistake, it has not taken responsibility. The error, which was committed by the Tax Agency and which had fatal consequences, was not considered “special reasons” by the county governor and Bufdir. It is both incomprehensible and hair-raising, says the lawyer and continues:
– You learn that we must fight for injustice to become right. But in this case it has been the opposite. Injustice has become double injustice.
– Robbed of the opportunity for a normal life
The decision that the marriage was wrong and was deleted meant that the woman could not submit a claim for equal division of the estate according to the community property rules.
– I sold my home and have lost everything I had of value before we got married. Now it could end in personal bankruptcy, says the woman.
She is considering a lawsuit against the Tax Agency, if they do not take responsibility for the mistake they made.
– The fact that they labeled our marriage as legal and walked away from it years later has destroyed my finances. And robbed me of the opportunity to live a normal life. It is so unfair that I refuse to give in, says the woman.
She also warns other couples who have married abroad.
– I hope no one has to go through such an exhausting nightmare as I am experiencing. But similar mistakes may have been made and people may be unaware that their marriage is actually invalid.
The tax authorities state that they cannot comment on individual cases due to the duty of confidentiality, and write:
– We are not aware of assessments made by the State Administrator or any other public authorities in this matter. Should there be a claim for compensation in the case, the Norwegian Tax Agency will take a position on this.
