This couple, who can’t be identified, are involved in a $10 million legal dispute. Picture: Adam Head
media_cameraThis couple, who can’t be identified, are involved in a $10 million legal dispute. Picture: Adam Head

Meet the heir worth $10 million who can’t even buy a vacuum cleaner without asking permission

HE IS the heir worth $10 million who can’t even buy a vacuum cleaner for his modest Gold Coast house without asking for permission.

And we can’t identify him because his money and affairs are now under the control of the state in a growing trend of families fighting over a living person’s wealth rather than disputing a will.

Now aged 70, the man’s life changed in 2012 when he became one of a handful of people set to inherit millions after the sale of his family’s iconic Australian food company.

“He’s worth $10 million and he can’t even spend 10 cents without going cap in hand. It’s an abuse of human rights,” the man’s wife said.

“My husband does not have dementia. He was an alcoholic and has short-term memory loss with not one negative medical report about capacity to run his life.”

The wife claims she and the man had known each other for 20 years but his decision to become sober at the end of 2012 led them to marry in a secret ceremony not attended by his adult children.

A couple of months later they got a letter saying his daughters had instigated guardianship proceedings in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal with claims he was being unduly influenced by the woman he previously did not want to marry.

During hearings the two daughters told the tribunal the wife had taken advantage of their father’s dementia by socially isolating and emotionally abusing him.

They tendered photos of signs in the house warning him not to open the door to family and to contact his wife if the daughters rang.

“I was very worried that she was exerting a huge amount of influence over Dad and controlling his life,’’ one daughter said.

Through their lawyer the daughters said they missed their father and believed he was the victim of elder abuse for financial gain.

In ordering the Public Trustee and Adult Guardian take control of the man’s affairs, the tribunal found he was vulnerable and his wife had taken “significant advantage’’ of his declining capacity.

Appeals are currently under way.